[quote]The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Google in its 11-year legal battle with an authors group.
The Court said it would not hear an appeal from the Authors Guild, which claimed Google breached copyright laws by scanning books without permission.
The technology giant began the process in 2004, so it could include extracts in a searchable database, and it was sued by the Authors Guild in 2005.[/quote]
source: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36072243[/url]
Personal opinion: Thank fuck. Not having all printed media searchable is a completely stupid limitation. Fuck copyright.
Yeah, if I can't search the books on Google 99% of the time the book might as well not exist to me. On the other hand, if the text is found in the book, I might need it and just buy it on Kindle for easy reference. That's how I found the Disaster Artist and the reason why I bought it and loved it. For researchers, I would imagine this would only increase the chances of purchasing books as they might not be a bookstore that often.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;50155840]Yeah, if I can't search the books on Google 99% of the time the book might as well not exist to me. On the other hand, if the text is found in the book, I might need it and just buy it on Kindle for easy reference. That's how I found the Disaster Artist and the reason why I bought it and loved it. For researchers, I would imagine this would only increase the chances of purchasing books as they might not be a bookstore that often.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Imagine not only fictional and non-fictional books but also reference books, instruction manuals etc for hardware and ideas dating back thousands of years. Who in their right mind wouldn't want that to be searchable?
[QUOTE]The organisation's president Roxana Robinson said: "We believed then and we believe now that authors should be compensated when their work is copied for commercial purposes".[/QUOTE]
I can hardly see how an original work can be claimed "for commercial purpose" when the majority of the books published on Google are only available in snippets.
The fair use doctrine clearly applied in this case, the "substantive amount" criteria having not meet.
Edit: Off topic, I would be damn furious as a creator If I have to fricking wait 11 years just to get the final judgment. Something needs to be done.
Most of the time it's introductions that are copied anyway, so it's a good way to see what books are about, and basic statistics when they're included.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
