In the long run, the ruling could inspire other large-scale digitization projects.
Advertisement
The firm scanned books submitted to it by libraries, in return for the libraries with the ability to make the digital copies obtainable to customers in restricted methods. There must be a meaningful or significant effect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. It does not engage in the direct commercialization of copyrighted works… Google [corporate website] has scanned more than 20 million books since 2004 in an effort to provide people with a searchable catalog of books in all languages.
The court found the search function transformative since “the result of a word search is different in goal, character, expression, meaning, and message from the page (and the book) from which it is drawn”. Most of these books are non-fiction, and are out of print.
“The circuit court’s decision is a victory for the public”, said Raza Panjwani, policy counsel at Washington-based Public Knowledge Internet freedom advocacy group. But that didn’t kill its argument. The goal is to make information about the book available, not the information in the book. Which was not any more receptive to their arguments than the district court was. A few out-of-print titles are available to read in full.
Second, the court is right on the “substantial substitute” angle.
The Authors Guild, a writers’ organization, argued the Google project is “quintessentially commercial in nature” and meant to advance the company’s business interests.
Today, the 2nd Circuit looks at two main aspects of “Google Print”: allowing users to search a book’s text and allowing users to view snippets. Again, the appeals judges don’t accept the comparison.
The judges brushed off concern that Google’s digital storage of books put the content within reach of hackers who would pirate the content.
The Authors Guild had appealed a previous ruling at a lower court that also sided with Google, finding the book-scanning – even without the authors’ permission – in compliance with copyright law.
Advertisement
But that didn’t happen, and Chin allowed a class-action status for the case. The parties reached a settlement, but the judge rejected it in 2011. He dismissed the litigation in 2013. That win has now been upheld by the appeals court. The court further added “It is also possible that, in such a suit, Plaintiffs might adduce evidence that Google was aware of or encouraged such infringing practices, in which case Google could be liable as a contributory infringer”.
