Adam Liptak, writing for the New York Times:
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a challenge to Google’s digital library of millions of books, turning down an appeal from authors who said the project amounted to copyright infringement on a mass scale.
The Supreme Court’s brief order left in place an appeals court decision that the project was a “fair use” of the authors’ work, ending a legal saga that had lasted more than a decade.
Extinguishing that brief hope. It’s over. Google won, authors nothing.
Supreme Court is wrong here. Perhaps when judicial sanity is restored someone will revisit this case.
Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make them wrong. Let’s consider the possibility that they have considered more legal angles than you are qualified to even contemplate. And, before you claim any kind of relevant expertise (as everyone does on the internet), they are Supreme Court judges and you … are not. So, you simply don’t qualify to say they are right or wrong.
“Extinguishing that brief hope. It’s over. Google won, authors nothing.”
What on earth are you talking about? They have done absolutely nothing wrong. Court after court after court has confirmed that. By disagreeing with the decision it’s clear you either 1) know nothing about copyright law, or 2) really really hate Google. Either way it makes this blog look like amateur hour.
I’d say it makes it look more like a blog run by a group of older guys. Get off my lawn! I don’t necessarily know if that makes it amateurish. I do think Google is sort of evil, and I dislike how powerful they are getting. I have appreciated this service and found it useful myself though. But I don’t mind Jim or Shawn or Dave have an opinion. It’s part of the site. Just like disagreeing with them in the comments section has become.
I usually agree with all three. Sometimes I only comment if I disagree. I fear that makes me a complainer. Out of the three, I tend to agree with Shawn the most.
Honestly even if Supreme court rules against Google, the damage is already done.
It’s kinda like Netscape VS Microsoft.
Last I heard, everyone has the right to say something in this country, qualified or not. Also, I seriously doubt you know Jim’s qualifications, anyway. So, that would make you unqualified to say anything about him, going by your statement.
Further, the idea that the Court doesn’t get things wrong is untenable.
Of course it does, if only because it’s filled with human beings … who don’t have to answer to anyone else.
(Also, note that the arguments for SC cases are public record, and it’s not all that hard to just read the arguments and the decisions.)
I have no stance on this case, not caring about it and thus not having done either – but the idea that you need to be a Judge to understand the issue or notice when a Judge is wrong is intellectually untenable.
I think Dave’s argument is not “the Court applied the law incorrectly” so much as “the law here is bad law”.
This decision further degrades the value of countless hours of work and creativity, all for the sake of appealing to baby libertarians who believe free content is their birthright.
If this doesn’t disturb you, there’s a good chance you’ve never written anything that anyone would want to buy.
You mean as opposed to people like Benjamin Franklin who championed the idea of libraries? Also what Google is doing with Google Books is essentially what it does with Search, indexing a huge corpus of data to make finding relevant or useful documents easier.
I’ll assume you’re talking about public libraries, which exist for the common good, and whose purpose is not to aggregate content for private profit. Google isn’t a library.
Actually Franklin started with private libraries which pooled the resources of members to buy books since it would have been too expensive to buy individually.
You argued that indexing books somehow degrades their value. Given the existence of private and public libraries how does Google Books degrade books any more than free access to the entire book at a public library does?
Google Books is very much a library for those books which it has rights to provide in full. It functions almost exactly as an academic library does in terms of indexing contents and providing either the full, digital document or links to where to procure the document.
As I understand it, Franklin’s effort largely predates public libraries. He performed a different service for a very different society. He pooled resources that didn’t create full digital copies of other people’s work.
I never specifically indicated an opinion about indexing. Indexes are an enormous help to everyone, and we now have access to many more of them than Franklin did. As long as they’re not appropriating a significant amount of a private work, I applaud any such effort.
I’m far more concerned about, as you say, providing “the full, digital content.” Does Google only do that for public domain works?
Yes, you can say something. Something unqualified. LOLOLOLOL!!!
Google only provides the full, digital content for public domain material and material for which it has been given permission to publish. Otherwise it just gives you information about the book. Some publishers allow Google to also publish snippets or a preview of the book.
Again, you’re qualified to comment on people’s qualifications or on the rules of posting to this forum because…?
“my ro<? >om mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc592ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc592:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsCollectGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc592……….