Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Nov 2013 16:37 UTC
Google

Google has won a resounding victory in its eight-year copyright battle with the Authors Guild over the search giant's controversial decision to scan more than 20 million library and make the available on the internet.

In a ruling (embedded below) issued Thursday morning in New York, US Circuit Judge Denny Chin said the book scanning amounted to fair use because it was "highly transformative" and because it didn't harm the market for the original work.

"Google Books provides significant public benefits," writes Chin, describing it as "an essential research tool" and noting that the scanning service has expanded literary access for the blind and helped preserve the text of old books from physical decay.

Too much common sense. I'm not sure I can handle this.

Thread beginning with comment 576894
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Here are some facts...
by olafg on Fri 15th Nov 2013 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Here are some facts..."
olafg
Member since:
2010-05-27

When did Pirate Bay start responding to takedown requests from copyright holders?


Pirate Bay did not host anything so there is nothing to take down, and they are political. The only practical difference is that Youtube is balancing the legal borderline and pretending not to benefit from plagiarism, but they still make money from advertising on videos that violate copyrights.

Your whining about something most of the studios stopped caring about long ago.


I am not whining at all. I am simply pointing out that the main principal difference between youtube and Pirate Bay is that the former is commercial and apolitical legal-tip-toing and the latter is a political statement. The effect on copyright for authors on moral grounds is basically the same. Legal does not mean good ethics. Actually, since Pirate Bay is political I'd say their ethics are better (even though I disagree with them).

What big studios do is irrelevant.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Here are some facts...
by galvanash on Fri 15th Nov 2013 22:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Here are some facts..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

So I guess my question is how would you propose someone run a website hosting user created videos? Or is your argument that the benefits of such a site are outweighed by its potential to harm copyright holders?

Seriously, in my view Google bends over backwards to try and compensate for the harm done to copyright holders by their service. But in practical terms if what they currently do is not good enough in your opinion, then what is the alternative? Who does it "ethically"? Or is it your contention that such a service cannot be done ethically and therefore should not exist?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Here are some facts...
by olafg on Fri 15th Nov 2013 23:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Here are some facts..."
olafg Member since:
2010-05-27

Youtube compensate authors for copyright violations? You mean they actually pay copyright holders for the advertising they have done on their content in the case of infringement and in addition pay the standard rate for displaying the content? The standard for infringing here is that you pay twice the normal licensing-rate (like if you by mistake use a photo or forget to give credit even with a license). I do not think Youtube does this?

You can create an ethical hosting service if you a) make it easy to remove obviously infringing content b) require uploaders to provide verified identity information that is public. Youtube made the takedown process slow in it's formative years, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't on purpose. Youtube would never have gained traction had it not been for the massive plagiarism that took place there in the formative years. Then they can act a bit nicer once they gain critical mass, otherwise the lobbyists will press for regulation. It's a game.

Just about everything Google does is based on making money off other people's IP. Their key business model is:

1. Advertising on the aggregate of other people's IP.

2. Keeping the competition at bay by critical-mass strategies.

Youtube and Google Books is about staying current even when other web search engines reach parity by being broader than other services. Android and Chromebook is about undermining the critical mass bias of competing services (Microsoft/Bing etc).

Like any other big business all ethics go out the window if their actions provides a long-term strengthening/protection of their core business. Then they spin to make it look good in the public's eye.

I don't dislike Google. Their cloud solution is great. Dart is great. Chrome is good. But their ethics in business-critical areas is no better than IBM/Apple/Microsoft/Intel etc. It is a corporation. With corporate strategies.

Reply Parent Score: 2