Supreme Ct affirms Google Books scans of copyrighted works are objective utilize

49
Source:   —  April 19, 2016, at 2:00 AM

And the final word is: it’s objective use. The order is just an item in a long list of other orders that appeared today, and adds nothing to the argument except the tacit approval of the Second Circuit Ct of Appeals two thousand fifteen decision — itself approving an even earlier decision, that of the U.

Supreme Ct affirms Google Books scans of copyrighted works are objective utilize

A Supreme Ct order issued today closes the book on (or maybe merely ends this chapter of) more than a decade of valid warfare between Google and the Authors Guild over the legality of the former’s scanning without permission of millions of copyrighted books. And the final word is: it’s objective use.

The order is just an item in a long list of other orders that appeared today, and adds nothing to the argument except the tacit approval of the Second Circuit Ct of Appeals two thousand fifteen decision — itself approving an even earlier decision, that of the U. S. District Ct for the Southern District of NY in two thousand-thirteenth. So in a way, it’s old news.

The two thousand thirteen decision found that the scanning of books (provided for that purpose by libraries) wasn't a violation of copyright, owing to its being “transformative” — in a technical sense. The books weren't simply being resold or the like, but were being used for a new and creative purpose: a look for engine for books that were frequently out of print or copyright. It doesn’t allow a “substitute” for the original work, and the Ct accepted Google’s argument that it was in fact doing a public service as well as providing authors with new audiences.

The Appeals Ct found that decision sound, and presently the Supreme Ct has, at least, declined to examine it, which is as much as saying it’s fine with them.

Naturally, the Authors Guild is furious. Executive director Mary Rasenberger lashed out in a press release:

Blinded by the public benefit arguments, the Second Circuit’s ruling tells us that Google, not authors, deserves to profit from the digitization of their books… The price of this short-term public benefit may well be the future vitality of American culture.

The vituperative tone may cause eye-rolling in some who discover the fair utilize case to be an obvious one, but Rasenberger does go on to make broader, more philosophical observations that are food for thought:

Authors are already among the most poorly paid workers in America; if tomorrow’s authors cannot create a living from their work, only the independently wealthy or the subsidized will be able to pursue a career in writing, and America’s intellectual and artistic soul will be impoverished.

The denial of review is further proof that we’re witnessing a vast redistribution of wealth from the creative sector to the tech sector, not only with books, but across the spectrum of the arts.

It’s fuel for the ongoing argument about whether and how technology enables and damages the creation and distribution of art, be it literary, musical or visual. This decision is, I think, the right one, but there are tough questions that it doesn’t answer. Copyright is at best a deeply flawed system as it stands legislated today, though few will argue with the concept of valid protections of creative works.

That said, any copyright policy (or lawsuit) that fails to acknowledge the vastly different world those works enter into today versus even a few years ago is bound to crumble in time. And, for that matter, any effort sufficiently advanced of concept will certainly invite valid scrutiny and obstruction. Not every such effort can wage a decade-long valid battle, so alas, many a far-reaching project will be (and has been) smothered at the earliest stages.

The Guild will “keep fighting” and promised to act as watchdog over Google (although the Books project isn’t nearly as active as it once was) while pursuing its own solution to the question of mass online distribution and indexing.

READ ALSO
Verizon and Hearst team up to purchase Complex Media

Verizon and Hearst team up to purchase Complex Media

Verizon Wireless and Hearst Corp. are set to jointly acquire Complex Media. The “video-first” lifestyle site, focused on pop-culture trends and common entertainment, will continue to work independently, albeit with Verizon and Hearst presently each owning...

72
Longtime Facebook VP Mike Vernal joins Sequoia Capital

Longtime Facebook VP Mike Vernal joins Sequoia Capital

Before joining Facebook, Vernal spent nearly six years at Microsoft, first as a product manager and later as a development lead. The Harvard grad (two degrees), wrote in a tweet this afternoon that “Facebook is an exceptional company with incredible...

61
As VCs enroll the startup class of two thousand sixteen its RIP for ‘me too’ companies

As VCs enroll the startup class of two thousand sixteen its RIP for ‘me too’ companies

linkedin. com/in/bonatsos"Niko Bonatsos is a managing director at Common Catalyst Partners. How to connect the network Many of the world’s legendary tech companies got started just as the public markets were cooling off; Microsoft, Apple,...

66
Why On-Demand Technologies Are Excellent for Productivity

Why On-Demand Technologies Are Excellent for Productivity

Impressively, initial jobless claims are the lowest they've been in more than forty years. What hasn't followed suit is productivity. As has been the case since the start of the recession, U.

60