Dear Google: Stand Up For Fair Use In The Google Book Fight

from the don't-get-too-cute dept

Now that a judge has rejected the "settlement" between Google and the Authors Guild, many people are asking what will happen next. There may be appeals or alternative settlements proposed, but given my previous statements on the settlement, it'll probably come as little surprise to people that I agree with Tim Lee that Google should go back to standing up for fair use. It should take this fight on and show that its scanning of such books is fair use, and not infringement at all. It should show that it doesn't need any kind of settlement, because it's not violating copyright law. And, as we've discussed, it now has more caselaw on its side. Since the original settlement came about, Turnitin's database of the works of others was found to be legal, which many people are realizing helps Google's case quite a bit.
I think the failure of the settlement may strengthen Google's fair use argument. Fair use exists as a kind of safety valve for the copyright system, to ensure that it does not damage free speech, innovation, and other values. Although formally speaking judges are supposed to run through the famous four factor test to determine what counts as a fair use, in practice an important factor is whether the judge perceives the defendant as having acted in good faith. Google has now spent three years looking for a way to build its Book Search project using something other than fair use, and come up empty. This underscores the stakes of the fair use fight: if Judge Chin ruled against Google's fair use argument, it would mean that it was effectively impossible to build a book search engine as comprehensive as the one Google has built. That outcome doesn't seem consistent with the constitution's command that copyright promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

Filed Under: books, copyright, fair use, scanning
Companies: google

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 9:59pm


    I don't really think it's going to help Googles case. Not that it shouldn't, just that the rulings seems to be consistent with the idea that copy'right' is mostly used to reduce the consumption and production of content, the copying of content for the purpose of consuming it, and to create artificial scarcity and it's not meant for the purpose of preventing the above. The GPL, for example, is an unintended consequence of copy'right' and so are many similar licenses. In the TurnItIn case the works are being used to prevent the copying of work for consumption (ie: by the teacher). It is the consumption of the work that benefits the student, the teacher reads the work and gives the student a good grade. The purpose of copy'right' is to prevent commoners from benefiting from the consumption of copied works (at least without paying monopoly prices), in the TurnItInCase the students are trying to establish the opposite, and so the ruling is against the students. The database doesn't consume works in that it's not a person that reads them, and so it's OK for it to be used to restrict the consumption of copied work (by people).

    In the Google case, the copying is being used to facilitate consumption and competition and copy'right' isn't intended for that purpose. Copy'right' is intended to create artificial scarcity to facilitate income inequality and I expect that future rulings will be consistent with its true intent.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.