Supreme Court Says It Won't Hear Authors Guild Appeal Over Google Books Ruling
from the nice-to-see dept
Last fall, the 2nd Circuit appeals court gave a clear and convincing win to Google in the long-running Authors Guild case against Google’s book scanning program. And, really, the decision was a massive win for the public, in that it was a strong defense of fair use (even in commercial settings). But, of course, the still clueless Authors Guild — which doesn’t seem to actually represent the interests of most authors (many of whom have found Google Books to be a profoundly useful tool) — decided to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the case.
That request has now been rejected. As is standard with the Supreme Court, no reason is given:

Either way, this is a very good thing. The excellent 2nd Circuit ruling stands. And while it technically only applies to cases in that circuit, it will most likely influence cases elsewhere. Also, the Supreme Court has a long, and unfortunate, history of coming up with nutty decisions in big copyright cases.
Filed Under: 2nd circuit, book scanning, copyright, elena kagan, fair use, supreme court
Companies: authors guild, google
Comments on “Supreme Court Says It Won't Hear Authors Guild Appeal Over Google Books Ruling”
Not Surprising
The Supreme Court has a long, and unfortunate, history of coming up with nutty decisions in favor of big business in big copyright cases. Although they made the right move in this case, I suspect Google’s size was the reason.
Re: Not Surprising
The “big business”, in this case would be the corporations who own the publishers, so, as usual, you’re wrong.
Try again, boy.
Re: Not Surprising
You do realize the “but but but Google” argument is pretty tired at this point?
But how will authors get paid?
If people can now freely read short snippets from out of print books that will never be in print ever, ever again, then how will the authors of those books get paid?
Re: But how will authors get paid?
I hope I didn’t need to put a /sarcasm tag on that.
Re: But how will authors get paid?
Simple.. When there book rights revert back to them from being out of print for so long. (This is standard in publishing contracts) they can they turn around and put it up on Amazon print on demand.
Re: Re: But how will authors get paid?
Presuming the authors (or their descendants) are even alive.
The Guild's Next Move
Sue Google for not providing a link to “buy a drm laden copy for your kindle/ipad/whatever device here” at only twice the price of the original hardback, with all proceeds going into more lawsuits against innovation.
Re: The Guild's Next Move
Except Google already provides multiple links to buy the book if it’s for sale.
“nutty decisions in big copyright cases”
Translation:
“decisions that don’t favor the corporations I astroturf for”
Re: Re:
So, who do you astroturf for then? Clearly you must do it for /something/ if you’re bringing up the subject.
Re: Re:
If you didn’t have a twisted perverted view of copyright then you would see it the same way.
Re: Re:
Projection is a wonderful thing.
Re: Re:
Anonymous64 just hates it when due process is enforced.
Re: Re:
Translation:
You’re a lying jackass.
“Makes it harder to sell my books.”
If _I_ were an author, the first thing I’d want everyone to know is, let me think, “if you read even a small snippet of my work, you’re unlikely ever to want to purchase anything I write.”
Yes, I’d paint that on billboards: I’D EVEN MAKE A FEDERAL CASE OF IT.
The Author’s Guild said today that the Courts focused too much on the public benefit of what Google was doing, and then said this:
“The price of this short-term public benefit may well be the future vitality of American culture….”
A bit of hyperbole there!
Re: Re:
With just a dash of humor too, given eternal copyright is much more damaging to culture than expanding fair use slightly, yet I doubt they’d be in favor of shortening copyright terms in order to bolster the ‘vitality of American culture’.
Avarice and greed, just one of the deadly sins.
Re: Re:
Avarice and Greed are two, not one.
And they are not deadly sins to a copyright pigopolist. They are virtues to be strived for.