5 ms·

Didn't google do almost exactly this with google books - making agreements with libraries and digitising their collections without paying the publishers or the

Didn't google do almost exactly this with google books - making agreements with libraries and digitising their collections without paying the publishers or the authors? Maybe I misunderstood.

sva_ 4y ago
They didnt offer the full books afaik.
- kybernetikos 4y ago
  Ahh, you're right. They copied the full books, but they don't let the public view more than snippets unless they have rights to do so. That must be the 'transformative use'.
  - simonh 4y ago
    I think you are allowed to duplicate short extracts of works as part of fair use.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      It's a four factor test (but the second factor rarely counts). the purpose and character of your use the nature of the copyrighted work the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market. The court found that Google copied the entirety of the work into their search index, but that this (taking into account the strict result snippet restrictions) didn't effect the market because no one would decide they didn't need the book now they had the snippet.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > They didnt offer the full books afaik. They got sued, and the settlement didn’t allow them to offer the full books except for-purchase with a particular revenue sharing arrangement.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    ...and then the court threw out the settlement as unfair, and then the court ruled in Google's favor. But the court noted that Google was right on the edge of fair use. Google notably prevented the previews from being usable as a replacement for an original purchase by only displaying 1/8 of a page snippets, blacklisting 1 snippet per page, blacklisting every tenth page completely, and blacklisting works where a single snippet could be all you wanted such as dictionaries and recipe books.
    - kybernetikos 4y ago
      I still feel like if I'd done something similar as an individual I would not have got away with it. Say I downloaded z-library and wrote a search system that only showed me snippets (for searching). How likely do you think courts would find in my favour?
      - iudqnolq 4y ago
        Yes, the court also found that their collaboration with libraries to legally scan the books mattered.
starkparker 4y ago
p19-20 of the ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.188.0.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1rM4_dbpOOKJUi5fRa112PSyoEYcd1z_ePwpL4WUEgA1FVIiWuiLCRs8w https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.53... > The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previewed as much in HathiTrust and Google Books, cases that “test[ed] the boundaries of fair use.” Google Books, 804 F.3d at 206. The defendant in HathiTrust scanned whole copies of millions of books, including those protected by valid copyrights, to create a database on which the general public could search for particular terms across the scanned works. 755 F.3d at 91. The creation of this “full-text searchable database [was] a quintessentially transformative use,” the court held, because “the result of a word search is different in purpose, character, expression, meaning, and message from the page (and the book) from which it is drawn.” Id. at 97. Importantly, the database did not “allow users to view any portion of the books they [were] searching” and therefore, unlike IA’s Website, “d[id] not add into circulation any new, human-readable copies of any books” or “merely repackage or republish the originals.” Id. > Google Books similarly found transformative use in Google’s scanning of copyrighted books to create a database that included a “snippet view” search function that allowed readers to view a few lines of text containing searched-for terms. 804 F.3d at 208. The snippet view showed the searcher “just enough context surrounding the searched term” to help the searcher evaluate whether the book fell within the scope of the searcher’s interest “without revealing so much as to threaten the author’s copyright interests.” Id. at 208, 216. But the Court of Appeals cautioned that “[i]f Plaintiffs’ claim were based on Google’s converting their books into a digitized form and making that digitized version accessible to the public,” precisely what the Publishers allege in this case, the “claim [for copyright infringement] would be strong.” Id. at 225. If HathiTrust and Google Books demarcated the boundaries of fair use, this case shows what conduct remains squarely beyond fair use.

Didn't google do almost exactly this with google books - making agreements with libraries and digitising their collections without paying the publishers or the authors? Maybe I misunderstood.

sva_ 4y ago

They didnt offer the full books afaik.

kybernetikos 4y ago
Ahh, you're right. They copied the full books, but they don't let the public view more than snippets unless they have rights to do so. That must be the 'transformative use'.
- simonh 4y ago
  I think you are allowed to duplicate short extracts of works as part of fair use.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    It's a four factor test (but the second factor rarely counts). the purpose and character of your use the nature of the copyrighted work the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market. The court found that Google copied the entirety of the work into their search index, but that this (taking into account the strict result snippet restrictions) didn't effect the market because no one would decide they didn't need the book now they had the snippet.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> They didnt offer the full books afaik. They got sued, and the settlement didn’t allow them to offer the full books except for-purchase with a particular revenue sharing arrangement.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  ...and then the court threw out the settlement as unfair, and then the court ruled in Google's favor. But the court noted that Google was right on the edge of fair use. Google notably prevented the previews from being usable as a replacement for an original purchase by only displaying 1/8 of a page snippets, blacklisting 1 snippet per page, blacklisting every tenth page completely, and blacklisting works where a single snippet could be all you wanted such as dictionaries and recipe books.
  - kybernetikos 4y ago
    I still feel like if I'd done something similar as an individual I would not have got away with it. Say I downloaded z-library and wrote a search system that only showed me snippets (for searching). How likely do you think courts would find in my favour?
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      Yes, the court also found that their collaboration with libraries to legally scan the books mattered.

starkparker 4y ago

p19-20 of the ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.188.0.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1rM4_dbpOOKJUi5fRa112PSyoEYcd1z_ePwpL4WUEgA1FVIiWuiLCRs8w https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.53... > The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit previewed as much in HathiTrust and Google Books, cases that “test[ed] the boundaries of fair use.” Google Books, 804 F.3d at 206. The defendant in HathiTrust scanned whole copies of millions of books, including those protected by valid copyrights, to create a database on which the general public could search for particular terms across the scanned works. 755 F.3d at 91. The creation of this “full-text searchable database [was] a quintessentially transformative use,” the court held, because “the result of a word search is different in purpose, character, expression, meaning, and message from the page (and the book) from which it is drawn.” Id. at 97. Importantly, the database did not “allow users to view any portion of the books they [were] searching” and therefore, unlike IA’s Website, “d[id] not add into circulation any new, human-readable copies of any books” or “merely repackage or republish the originals.” Id. > Google Books similarly found transformative use in Google’s scanning of copyrighted books to create a database that included a “snippet view” search function that allowed readers to view a few lines of text containing searched-for terms. 804 F.3d at 208. The snippet view showed the searcher “just enough context surrounding the searched term” to help the searcher evaluate whether the book fell within the scope of the searcher’s interest “without revealing so much as to threaten the author’s copyright interests.” Id. at 208, 216. But the Court of Appeals cautioned that “[i]f Plaintiffs’ claim were based on Google’s converting their books into a digitized form and making that digitized version accessible to the public,” precisely what the Publishers allege in this case, the “claim [for copyright infringement] would be strong.” Id. at 225. If HathiTrust and Google Books demarcated the boundaries of fair use, this case shows what conduct remains squarely beyond fair use.