Ruling in Favor of Google Books

In my view, Google Books provides significant public benefits. It advances the progress of the arts and sciences,while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders. It has become an invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers,librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books. It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life. It facilitates access to books for print-disabled and remote or under served populations. It generates new audiences and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits.

Similarly, Google is entitled to summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims based on the copies of scanned books made available to libraries. Even assuming plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case of copyright infringement,Google's actions constitute fair use here as well. Google provides the libraries with the technological means to make digital copies of books that they already own. The purpose of the library copies is to advance the libraries' lawful uses of the digitized books consistent with the copyright law. The libraries then use these digital copies in transformative ways. They create their own full-text searchable indices of books,maintain copies for purposes of preservation, and make copies available to print-disabled individuals, expanding access for them in unprecedented ways. Google's actions in providing the libraries with the ability to engage in activities that advance the arts and sciences constitute fair use.

the library copies is to advance the libraries' lawful uses of the digitized books consistent with the copyright law. The libraries then use these digital copies in transformative ways. They create their own full-text searchable indices of books,maintain copies for purposes of preservation, and make copies available to print-disabled individuals, expanding access for them in unprecedented ways. Google's actions in providing the libraries with the ability to engage in activities that advance the arts and sciences constitute fair use. To the extent plaintiffs are asserting a theory of secondary liability against Google, the theory fails because the libraries' actions are protected by the fair use doctrine. Indeed, in the Hathi Trust case, Judge Baer held that the libraries' conduct was fair use. See Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 902 F. Supp. 2d 445, 460-61, 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("I cannot imagine a definition of fair use that would not encompass the transformative uses made by Defendants' [Mass Digitization Project] and would require that I terminate this invaluable contribution to the progress of science and cultivation of the arts that at the same time effectuates the ideals espoused by the[Americans with Disabilities Act]."). The fair use analysis set forth above with respect to Google Books applies here as well to the libraries use of their scans, and if there is no liability for copyright infringement on the libraries part, there can be no liability on Google's part.

Notes:

Judge Chinn rules that Google Books is fair use; therefore, memexplex is fair use.

Folksonomies: intellectual property fair use

Taxonomies:
/art and entertainment/books and literature (0.625821)
/technology and computing/software/databases (0.351610)
/law, govt and politics (0.292166)

Keywords:
Google Books (0.989430 (positive:0.494597)), full-text searchable indices (0.981123 (neutral:0.000000)), digital copies (0.956256 (positive:0.590428)), Google Books Judge (0.847350 (positive:0.436102)), libraries (0.846523 (negative:-0.001157)), library copies (0.771691 (neutral:0.000000)), books,maintain copies (0.764441 (neutral:0.000000)), print-disabled individuals (0.710457 (neutral:0.000000)), invaluable research tool (0.695781 (positive:0.620572)), significant public benefits (0.692285 (positive:0.547207)), transformative ways (0.687561 (positive:0.622945)), lawful uses (0.686789 (positive:0.469260)), copyright law (0.678347 (positive:0.469260)), unprecedented ways (0.677952 (neutral:0.000000)), prima facie case (0.666688 (positive:0.395535)), Mass Digitization Project (0.642472 (neutral:0.000000)), Hathi Trust case (0.623151 (positive:0.360524)), fair use analysis (0.566984 (positive:0.618795)), fair use doctrine (0.544922 (neutral:0.000000)), copyright holders (0.538217 (neutral:0.000000)), Chinn rules (0.534661 (positive:0.436102)), old books (0.532778 (negative:-0.315532)), respectful consideration (0.527661 (positive:0.688306)), scanned books (0.521396 (neutral:0.000000)), copyright infringement,Google (0.517749 (positive:0.395535)), creative individuals (0.514105 (positive:0.688306)), transformative uses (0.512845 (neutral:0.000000)), particular out-of-print (0.505539 (negative:-0.315532)), full-text searches (0.503259 (negative:-0.307253)), copyright infringement (0.500942 (neutral:0.000000))

Entities:
Google:Company (0.907296 (positive:0.263343)), fair use:FieldTerminology (0.881746 (positive:0.393611)), copyright law:FieldTerminology (0.374702 (positive:0.469260)), Judge Chinn:Person (0.293715 (positive:0.436102)), copyright infringement:FieldTerminology (0.288230 (neutral:0.000000)), Judge Baer:Person (0.229034 (neutral:0.000000)), Americans with Disabilities Act:FieldTerminology (0.222203 (negative:-0.444592)), Hathi Trust:Company (0.218734 (positive:0.360524))

Concepts:
Fair use (0.963767): dbpedia | freebase
Copyright infringement (0.938195): dbpedia | freebase
United States copyright law (0.853032): dbpedia
Copyright law (0.717225): dbpedia
Copyfraud (0.693065): dbpedia | freebase | yago
Prima facie (0.661371): dbpedia | freebase | yago
Limitations and exceptions to copyright (0.627884): dbpedia | freebase
Fair dealing (0.616434): dbpedia | freebase

 Author's Guild VS Google Inc
Legal Materials>Court Decision, Lower Federal:  Chin, Denny (11/14/13), Author's Guild VS Google Inc, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, Retrieved on 2013-11-15
  • Source Material [www.scribd.com]
  • Folksonomies: copyright fair use


    Schemas

    15 MAY 2011

     MemexPlex as New Media

    This is a survey of New Media memes throughout history, with comments on each in how it relates to MemexPlex.
     13