US judge weighs Google book copyright case

Sep 23, 2013 by John Biers
A woman chooses the Google web search engine front page on her tablet in the French western city of Rennes, May 13, 2013.

A federal judge Monday pointedly questioned attorneys for the Authors Guild in a long-running case on whether Google's book-scanning project violates copyright law.

The two sides presented in a hearing on whether the case should be dismissed, or whether the authors can maintain their challenge to the massive .

US District Judge Denny Chin said a core question in determining the case is whether there is "benefit to society" in helping users find information from books, facilitating inter-library loans or permitting data mining. All of these functions have been cited by proponents of Google's "Library Project" in legal briefs, Chin said.

An attorney for the guild said that while some uses may benefit society in some instances, it should not override authors' rights to control the content they created.

"Then there's a question of whether Google has to pay for it," Edward Rosenthal, an attorney representing the Authors Guild, told the court.

The back-and-forth between Rosenthal and Chin dominated a 45-minute hearing on the eight-year old proceeding.

Google has asked the court for summary judgement, a ruling that would gut the heart of the guild's case. The authors' group, in turn, has asked the court to deny Google's defense that the copying is a "fair use" that allows a deviation from normal copyright protections.

Google has scanned more than 20 million books so far in the project. Books in the public domain—without current copyrights—are made available online to the public for free. For copyrighted books Google offers a searchable database that displays snippets of text.

The guild has argued that should control their work and that Google's display of the excerpts violates copyright norms.

The guild argues further that Google's objectives are purely commercial since Google's main goal in the endeavor is to boost use of its search engine, which generates . While some users of Google's project may have worthy aims, Google's use of the material are not fair use, the guild argues.

Google counters that its book-scanning program provides a valuable societal benefit that can provide much sought-after information to users, permit innovative ways to analyze texts and generally enhance knowledge. Google argues its use of the material is only "indirectly commercial."

Chin focused most of his questions on the guild's contentions about Google's objectives. Chin said Google's use of the material can be fair use, even if there are commercial benefits to the company.

Another question Chin fixated on was the guild's argument that the Google service harms authors by diverting business away from Amazon and other booksellers once consumers realize they can find excerpts on the Google site for free.

Chin conceded that it is possible that a reader might decide to abandon a possible purchase because of the Google site, but questioned whether such an outcome was a "reasonable" possibility.

Rosenthal told the court readers will stop buying books on Amazon because of the Google site. Excerpts available on Amazon's site differ from the Google snippets because authors get to decide, he said.

"Authors have a right to decide whether they want their books not only displayed, but also stored," Rosenthal said.

Google meanwhile contends that there is no evidence the service harms book sales.

Daralyn Durie, an attorney representing the tech giant, said there was only the tiniest of chances of a user could cobble together enough content from the snippets to avoid buying a book.

"There's no reason to think Google Books is being used for a purpose other than what it was designed for," Durie said.

The two sides reached a tentative $125 million settlement in the case in 2008, but Chin rejected the agreement in a March 2011 ruling, concluding it was not "fair, adequate and reasonable." That opened up the litigation to a new phase, culminating in Monday's one-day hearing.

Explore further: Study: Social media users shy away from opinions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Court: No class-action status in Google book case (Update)

Jul 01, 2013

Google Inc. got a friendly ruling Monday from a federal appeals panel that stripped a group representing authors of class-action status as the search engine defends itself against claims that its plan to create the world's ...

Google seeks to close book in author copyright case

Jul 27, 2012

Google asked a US court Friday to put an end to a long-running lawsuit over the Internet giant's massive book-scanning project, saying the effort is "not a substitute" for books themselves.

Judge refuses to delay NY case for Google appeal

Aug 29, 2012

(AP)—The federal judge presiding over challenges to Google Inc.'s plans to create the world's largest digital library has refused to delay the 7-year-old case while Google appeals his decision to grant authors class certification.

Google wants authors group out of NY library case

May 03, 2012

(AP) -- Google Inc. urged a judge Thursday to toss The Authors Guild and an organization representing photographers out of 6-year-old litigation over the future of the world's largest digital library, a move that would force ...

Recommended for you

Study: Social media users shy away from opinions

Aug 26, 2014

People on Facebook and Twitter say they are less likely to share their opinions on hot-button issues, even when they are offline, according to a surprising new survey by the Pew Research Center.

US warns shops to watch for customer data hacking

Aug 23, 2014

The US Department of Homeland Security on Friday warned businesses to watch for hackers targeting customer data with malicious computer code like that used against retail giant Target.

Fitbit to Schumer: We don't sell personal data

Aug 22, 2014

The maker of a popular line of wearable fitness-tracking devices says it has never sold personal data to advertisers, contrary to concerns raised by U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer.

Should you be worried about paid editors on Wikipedia?

Aug 22, 2014

Whether you trust it or ignore it, Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites in the world and accessed by millions of people every day. So would you trust it any more (or even less) if you knew people ...

How much do we really know about privacy on Facebook?

Aug 22, 2014

The recent furore about the Facebook Messenger app has unearthed an interesting question: how far are we willing to allow our privacy to be pushed for our social connections? In the case of the Facebook ...

Philippines makes arrests in online extortion ring

Aug 22, 2014

Philippine police have arrested eight suspected members of an online syndicate accused of blackmailing more than 1,000 Hong Kong and Singapore residents after luring them into exposing themselves in front of webcam, an official ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Humpty
1 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2013
Google (the people running this company) are not altruistic - even for a fucking second.

This is NOT quite true - and it's the bit that is NOT quite true that is bare faced lying.

"Google has scanned more than 20 million books so far in the project. Books in the public domain—without current copyrights—are made available online to the public for free. For copyrighted books Google offers a searchable database that displays snippets of text."

There are stacks of fairly ho-hum books that are now digitally available - for free.... and that is nice.

But there are staggering amounts of really, really good books, that are like 100 - 200 years old etc., that the managers of Google have scanned, and they DO NOT make them available for downloading, they MONETISE them by making them ONLY available through book sellers.

These arseholes in Google are lying their faces off.

And these "book sellers" are all in on the scam too.

rkolter
not rated yet Sep 24, 2013
Just a thought about the Guild's contention that the author gets to choose the snippits on Amazon.com and so Google should not be allowed to display random snippits.

If that is true, then the logical conclusion is that brick and mortar bookstores should not be allowed to sell the same books, because the authors cannot control the snippits that a reader may peruse when considering whether or not to buy the book.

Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.