Court Says Authors Guild Has Standing To Sue Over Google Books, Despite It Not Representing Authors' Views

from the unfortunate dept

About a month ago, we wrote about how Google was trying to convince the judge in the Google book scanning case that the Authors Guild did not have standing to sue on behalf of authors. This was, in part, because different authors would have very different issues (especially on the fair use analysis), but also because lots and lots of authors didn't seem to have a problem with what Google was doing (especially considering studies that have shown being in Google Books helps sell more books).

However, the judge in the case has ruled, mostly on a procedural basis, that the Authors Guild does, in fact, have standing to sue. It argues that associations have long been allowed to sue on behalf of their members, and the fair use analysis questions aren't really a big deal. At worst, the court says it could split up the "classes" into different groups, so that those with specific issues could be judged separately. Of course, you could just as easily make the argument that this reasoning should have resulted in the opposite conclusion. If the court is going to lump different groups of authors into different camps, then shouldn't each of those groups create their own class action suits, rather than putting them all under the Authors Guild's umbrella? No one is arguing that there can't be a class action lawsuit if the relevant class is assembled. There's just a big question over whether or not the Authors Guild really represents the interests of the people included in the classes. And the judge doesn't really address that question, other than to say those who don't have a problem with Google Books can more or less opt-out of the class.

On one point, however, the judge's reasoning does make sense: why did Google wait so long to challenge the Authors Guild's standing. Elements of this case have been going on for many, many years. It does seem a little off to file this particular point so late.

I doubt many people are that surprised by the ruling, but it does mean that Google will have to continue the Google book scanning fight against the Authors Guild. In the long run, I still think any result only ends up harming the Authors Guild. They are showing themselves to be anti-innovation luddites who disregard the interests of the majority of their members, while grandstanding against any new technology that upends the old publisher-gatekeeper model. That may be useful for some big name authors they represent -- since it's all about keeping out competition from new authors, but it's no path to the future.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Vadim Lebedev, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 5:56am

    Why don't authors sue Authors Guild

    Maybe the authors should launch class action AGAINST Authors Guild

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Cowardly Anonymous, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 5:57am

    Fortunate

    Actually, given the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, denying the Author's Guild the ability to stand in for their members would almost certainly be overturned on appeal. However, this judge has found a clever way to enable authors to kill the law-suit.

    Sure, an opt-out policy might be harder to defeat than an opt-in, but in the face of the state of the law Today, this actually looks more like the judge is doing everything he feels he can to help Google out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Jeffry Houser (profile), Jun 1st, 2012 @ 6:05am

    Re: Fortunate

    I'd like to think that the Judge is going out of his way to uphold the law/approaches that he believes is legally correct; as opposed to helping a single defendant/plaintiff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 6:16am

    They are showing themselves to be anti-innovation luddites who disregard the interests of the majority of their members

    Exactly what evidence do you have of this? There are 8000+ members and absolutely no indication that a majority oppose the Google litigation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Vic, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 6:27am

    It's probably going to be an another "Belgian Newspaper's" type suit in the the end... Sue, win, then "allow" Google to continue!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 1st, 2012 @ 6:42am

    Re:

    absolutely no indication that a majority oppose the Google litigation.
    He didn't say the majority oppose the Google litigation (which would require knowledge of their opinions).

    He did say that the Google litigation was against the interest of the majority. This is a judgement that can be made on economic/business grounds from the outside without knowledge of the authors' opinions.

    It is quite possible that the authors' opinions are in opposition to their own interests.

    What we like is often not good for us!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 6:47am

    American business is madness for one reason: they think a successful business is done by suing and isolating competition. when in fact, business is all about being ahead of your competition and creating product. Bunch of idiots don't even know what business means!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    RonKaminsky (profile), Jun 1st, 2012 @ 6:48am

    Can't lose, in the end

    As far as I can see, we cannot lose (or at least, lose everything), no matter what the outcome.

    If the scanning and snippet view is ruled as fair use, we get a good precedent. If the Authors Guild manages to shut down Google Books, then many, many more people will be exposed to another "infomercial" about how screwed up copyright law is nowadays. My guess is that it will give the Pirate Party oodles of new followers in Europe, for sure.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Jun 1st, 2012 @ 7:23am

    Re: Re: Fortunate

    I'd like to think that too.

    Unfortunately, personal experiences and observations make that very difficult.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 7:26am

    Re: Re:

    Fair enough. However, the members appear to feel that it is in their best interest as their representatives brought the initial case and continue to press it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 8:19am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Though by way of follow-up, Masnick's headline screams:

    Court Says Authors Guild Has Standing To Sue Over Google Books, Despite It Not Representing Authors' Views

    That is pretty much a statement suggesting that the majority of members of the Author's Guild oppose the position of the guild and the ensuing litigation. That, of course, is pure bullshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 8:43am

    exactly, 100% bullshit, Mike makes the headline scream what he wants, to further HIS own opinion and view of it

    that is exactly how groups work, not every member of a union, has to vote for a strike, for them to go on strike, or the union itself can order the strike if it feels it is needed, same thing, strawman much??

    they need to BIG association gone, so they can destroy the little guy

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Jun 1st, 2012 @ 8:51am

    Re: Fortunate

    I don't see what the Citizens United case has to do with this. The Citizens United case stated that people pooling resources to create political speech cannot be censored because it violates their First Amendment right to speak freely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 9:33am

    Re:

    they need to BIG association gone, so they can destroy the little guy


    Nice gibberish. Having trouble with Google Translator or just an imbecile?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 9:59am

    Silly question

    When its claimed that the authors guilds opinion on this matter may not actually represent the opinions of their authors, would'nt it be prudent for the judge to confirm something like this, assuming a judge has the right and the resources.
    Could he not simply ask for the contact details of all the authors officially represent, and have impartial officials pay them a quick call/visit, note down their response then poll them up to get a definitive answer

    Do the authors agree in suing others for anauthorised access to their works?

    I think more judges should be taking a more pro active approach to all their cases when possible, like the judge who learned Java in order to understand a case involving patents on java code. Now that guy has the right idea, shame we dont see that more often

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 10:22am

    Re:

    When its claimed that the authors guilds opinion on this matter may not actually represent the opinions of their authors, would'nt it be prudent for the judge to confirm something like this, assuming a judge has the right and the resources.

    Thus far, it seems that only Masnick is making such a claim.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 12:03pm

    What about non-members?

    "It argues that associations have long been allowed to sue on behalf of their members, and the fair use analysis questions aren't really a big deal."

    What about authors who aren't members of the Author's Guild? Why should they get to represent me in a class action lawsuit?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Why don't authors sue Authors Guild

    why don't WE sue the authors guild on behalf of readers? of course it a specious lawsuite, but most class actions are, and i sure as hell count myself as an impacted interested party.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Cowardly Anonymous, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Re: Fortunate

    Citizens United held that a corporation represents stock-holders pooling resources to create political speech, without requiring that those same stockholders all come forward (rather, it falls to the corporate procedures to make the decision).

    It is about aggregate groups having the power to speak on behalf of those they nominally represent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 2:07pm

    Re: What about non-members?

    Anyone can opt out of a class action suit. In the unlikely event you are an actual author, feel free to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 2:10pm

    Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 2:13pm

    Re:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120503/18180318772/google-points-out-that-what-authors-guild-want s-what-authors-want-are-two-very-different-things.shtml

    Reading the links in the article (hard, I know) we see that only 14% of polled authors object to Google Books. What was that you were assuming?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re:

    Still not reading those links, huh? Making assumptions of your own.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 2:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I tend to discount self-serving studies commissioned by the defendant. The judge didn't seem to buy it either. And what would have happened if the survey had been conducted by the Author's Guild of their members? I'm sure they could give you some dramatic results as well. The bottom line is that the judge isn't buying the Google-funded, Google-orchestrated "study" that just so happens to support their position as a defendant. No surprise there, except to perhaps you and Masnick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 1st, 2012 @ 7:49pm

    Re:

    Hurricane head, for someone who claims to dislike labels and large organisations making decisions for those they claim to represent, you spend a BLOODY AWFUL LOT of time trying to defend their practices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 2nd, 2012 @ 12:34am

    Re:

    Exactly what evidence do you have of this? There are 8000+ members and absolutely no indication that a majority oppose the Google litigation.

    The study presented in the case showed the majority of authors like Google scanning their books.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 2nd, 2012 @ 12:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That is pretty much a statement suggesting that the majority of members of the Author's Guild oppose the position of the guild and the ensuing litigation. That, of course, is pure bullshit.

    Again, the data shows that it's not bullshit:

    The majority of respondents, 58%, said they approved of Google scanning their books, while 28% were neutral and 14% objected. Almost three out of four respondents, 74%, said they don't believe that Google's scans would affect them financially, while 19% say they have or would benefit and 8% said they have or would be harmed.


    Care to take back your claim that it was "pure bullshit"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This