© 2015 albert-learning.com GOOGLE BOOKS CASE

© 2015 albert-learning.com Vocabulary Law suitA case in a court of law involving a claim, complaint, etc., By one party against another; suit at law. TwistCause to rotate around a stationary point; turn. GuildAn association of people for mutual aid or the pursuit of a common goal. Bound to"Intending to go Public domainThe state of belonging or being available to the public as a whole, especially through not being subject to copyright or other legal restrictions.

© 2015 albert-learning.com GOOGLE BOOKS CASE The original suit, filed in September of 2005, was the first against Google over its scanning program. Arguing for the Authors Guild, attorney Ned Rosenthal opened by insisting that Chin (The Honorable Judge)should evaluate Google’s efforts not by how users use Google Books, but by how Google uses the corpus of scanned works—as a commercial advantage for its search engine over competitors, without having paid copyright owners This is the latest twist in a six-year legal saga that began when Google announced in 2004 that it was partnering with several research universities around the world to scan their entire library collections. Google would then make the digitized copies available for search online. To date Google has scanned over 12 million books.

© 2015 albert-learning.com Scanning a book means copying it, and copying a book without permission from the publisher or author is a violation of copyright. Soon after the announcement, publisher and author groups began protesting In mid-2005, the Author’s Guild and the American Association of Publishers filed suit to stop Google from scanning any more books. Soon the Author’s Guild’s case was certified as a class-action lawsuit, meaning that anyone who had ever published a book—millions of authors—would be part of the class represented and would be bound by the result of the case.

© 2015 albert-learning.com ARGUMENT NED ROSENTHAL pointed out that Google’s ambitious plan as a violation of their rights. If Google was going to use their works, they wanted to be asked for permission—and they wanted a cut of any profits. Daralyn Durie stated that Google maintained that scanning the books was “fair use.” While all books would be indexed and searchable on the Google Books site, users would only be able to access the full text of books that were out of copyright and in the public domain. If a book was still under copyright, and its rights-holder had not given permission, then a search would only return a small “snippet” of text, not the whole book or even a page.

© 2015 albert-learning.com ARGUMENT: NED ROSENTHAL then pivoted to Google’s display of verbatim text. He suggested that snippet display harmed authors because it encouraged users to go to Google for their book search needs, rather than Amazon, with whom rights holders have licensed the right to scan books. With Google, Rosenthal noted, users might find all the text they need, where, with Amazon, they are encouraged to buy the book. Further, a diligent user could in theory conduct a long string of searches and end up getting almost the entire book. Daralyn Durie (attorney for Google ) As for the argument that a user could use strings of searches to retrieve an entire book, Durie said that was highly unlikely. In order to construct such searches, she argued, a user would have to have the book in front of them. Judge Chin again pressed, suggesting the evidence showed the opposite—that users are more likely to find a book on Google and buy it. And he appeared deeply skeptical that any user would go through the effort of the string of searches required to grab an entire book.

© 2015 albert-learning.com Rosenthal also argued that Google violated the copyright law by making multiple scans, and “distributing” copies of scans to libraries. He suggested that Google essentially bought the scans from libraries, with digital copies serving as payment for Google’s access to the materials. Daralyn Durie had a much easier time with Chin. She insisted that Google Books was indeed transformative, helping both users and authors. It was the court’s job, Durie stressed, to balance the authors' insistence on being able to absolutely control their works, with the benefit to the public.

© 2015 albert-learning.com DECISION: GOOGLE DEFEATS AUTHORS IN U.S. BOOK-SCANNING LAWSUIT (NOVEMBER 2013) U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan accepted Google's argument that its scanning of more than 20 million books, and making "snippets" of text available online, constituted "fair use" under U.S. copyright law. "It is also a good ruling for libraries and researchers, because the opinion recognizes the public benefit of making books available,"

© 2015 albert-learning.com JUDGE CHINS STATEMENTS Chin wrote that the scanning makes it easier for students, teachers, researchers and the public to find books, while maintaining "respectful consideration" for authors' rights. He also said Google's digitization was "transformative," meaning it gave the books a new purpose or character, and could be expected to boost rather than reduce book sales. The judge noted that Google takes steps to keep people from viewing complete copies of books online, including by keeping some snippets from being shown. "In my view, Google Books provide significant public benefits," Chin wrote. "Indeed, all society benefits."

© 2015 albert-learning.com DO YOU THING GOOGLE’S ACTIONS ARE CORRECT?