Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > Google book scanning suit hits appeals court, no decision reached

Google book scanning suit hits appeals court, no decision reached
Thread Tools
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 10:44 PM
 
A US federal appeals court has begun the discussion of whether plaintiffs in the Google e-book digitization project lawsuit should proceed as a class, or as individuals. The Authors Guild is claiming that the Google Books project is, in essence, copyright infringement on a massive scale -- and believes that a class of plaintiffs would squeeze more money out of the search engine giant more efficiently than separate suits, judged on individual merits.

Judge Pierre Leval, one of the three judges hearing the appeal, believes that Google's project, which seeks to create digital copies of most books in and out of print -- has merit. In the courtroom, addressing the effort, Level said that he believed that "a lot of authors would say, 'hey, that's great for me.'" Writers with obscure works would have the most to gain, assuming Google tells searchers where to find the works.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs Robert LaRocca argued that a survey Google conducted showing 58 percent of 500 authors approved of Google's project suffered from flawed methodology. "We think the vast majority of the class support [our position against Google]," he said.

The project could have "enormous value for our culture," said Circuit Judge Barrington Parker. "This is something that has never happened in the history of mankind."

Google lawyer Seth Waxman told the court that based on an agreement forged by the plaintiffs, Google would owe more than $3 billion in damages. Google has contended throughout the proceedings that the practice was "fair use", as it only provided portions of the works online. The case is likely to set precedent over whether an author or publisher has control over digital editions of printed books, and has the right to withhold or restrict third parties from using the works, even for a perceived public good.

An internal 2003 Google document described in the filing claims that searchers interested in book content should be directed to come to Google, not Amazon -- demonstrating that the scanning was never intended as "fair use" preservation. The "fair use" argument is the basis for Google's entire defense in the trials, the appeal, and public statements about the book-scanning project.

To execute the scanning, Google used hundreds of contractors in Boston, Ann Arbor, and Mountain View to run more than 300 machines. Libraries such as The New York Public Library, Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton only allowed Google to scan public domain works. Other libraries, including Wisconsin, University of Virginia, and Cornell, amongst others, showed no discrimination between public domain and copyrighted works. Google contractors made no specific judgement concerning the copyright status of any given book for scanning.

A $125 million settlement was reached in March 2011 between Google and The Authors Guild, but was rejected on legal grounds by Judge Denny Chin, despite his saying publicly that he sees tangible benefits to libraries from both the scanning effort and technology developed to scan the books.

Judge Chin said the agreement overreached because it gave Google a "de facto monopoly" to copy books without permission from rights holders, and served to increase its market share in online searches. The United States Justice Department, Amazon.com, and Microsoft had all expressed antitrust concerns about the settlement.
( Last edited by NewsPoster; May 9, 2013 at 04:50 AM. )
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:27 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2