Supreme Court Says It Won't Hear Authors Guild Appeal Over Google Books Ruling

from the nice-to-see dept

Mon, Apr 18th 2016 11:36am — Mike Masnick

Last fall, the 2nd Circuit appeals court gave a clear and convincing win to Google in the long-running Authors Guild case against Google's book scanning program. And, really, the decision was a massive win for the public, in that it was a strong defense of fair use (even in commercial settings). But, of course, the still clueless Authors Guild -- which doesn't seem to actually represent the interests of most authors (many of whom have found Google Books to be a profoundly useful tool) -- decided to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the case.

That request has now been rejected. As is standard with the Supreme Court, no reason is given:

If you can't read that, it just says that the petition for cert is denied and that Justice Kagan "took no part in the consideration." I'm not exactly sure why Kagan abstained -- I thought perhaps she had weighed in on earlier rounds of the case as Solicitor General, but can't find anything.

Either way, this is a very good thing. The excellent 2nd Circuit ruling stands. And while it technically only applies to cases in that circuit, it will most likely influence cases elsewhere. Also, the Supreme Court has a long, and unfortunate, history of coming up with nutty decisions in big copyright cases.

041816zor-2co3 (PDF)041816zor-2co3 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 2nd circuit, book scanning, copyright, elena kagan, fair use, supreme court
Companies: authors guild, google

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2016 @ 11:47am

Not Surprising
The Supreme Court has a long, and unfortunate, history of coming up with nutty decisions in favor of big business in big copyright cases. Although they made the right move in this case, I suspect Google's size was the reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 18 Apr 2016 @ 12:01pm

But how will authors get paid?
If people can now freely read short snippets from out of print books that will never be in print ever, ever again, then how will the authors of those books get paid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 18 Apr 2016 @ 12:02pm

Re: But how will authors get paid?
I hope I didn't need to put a /sarcasm tag on that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 18 Apr 2016 @ 12:45pm

The Guild's Next Move
Sue Google for not providing a link to "buy a drm laden copy for your kindle/ipad/whatever device here" at only twice the price of the original hardback, with all proceeds going into more lawsuits against innovation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2016 @ 1:05pm

"nutty decisions in big copyright cases"

Translation:

"decisions that don't favor the corporations I astroturf for"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2016 @ 1:08pm

Re:
So, who do you astroturf for then? Clearly you must do it for /something/ if you're bringing up the subject.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2016 @ 1:12pm

"Makes it harder to sell my books."

If _I_ were an author, the first thing I'd want everyone to know is, let me think, "if you read even a small snippet of my work, you're unlikely ever to want to purchase anything I write."

Yes, I'd paint that on billboards: I'D EVEN MAKE A FEDERAL CASE OF IT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 18 Apr 2016 @ 1:22pm

Re: The Guild's Next Move
Except Google already provides multiple links to buy the book if it's for sale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 18 Apr 2016 @ 1:23pm

Re:
If you didn't have a twisted perverted view of copyright then you would see it the same way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2016 @ 2:08pm

Re:
Projection is a wonderful thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
True (profile), 18 Apr 2016 @ 2:59pm

Re: But how will authors get paid?
Simple.. When there book rights revert back to them from being out of print for so long. (This is standard in publishing contracts) they can they turn around and put it up on Amazon print on demand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steerpike (profile), 18 Apr 2016 @ 4:56pm

The Author's Guild said today that the Courts focused too much on the public benefit of what Google was doing, and then said this:

"The price of this short-term public benefit may well be the future vitality of American culture...."

A bit of hyperbole there!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2016 @ 5:40pm

Re:
Anonymous64 just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 18 Apr 2016 @ 9:55pm

Re:
Translation:

You're a lying jackass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2016 @ 4:59am

Avarice and greed, just one of the deadly sins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 19 Apr 2016 @ 5:48am

Re:
Avarice and Greed are two, not one.

And they are not deadly sins to a copyright pigopolist. They are virtues to be strived for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2016 @ 7:23am

Re: Not Surprising
The "big business", in this case would be the corporations who own the publishers, so, as usual, you're wrong.
Try again, boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2016 @ 7:24am

Re: Re: But how will authors get paid?
Presuming the authors (or their descendants) are even alive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 19 Apr 2016 @ 9:00am

Re:
With just a dash of humor too, given eternal copyright is much more damaging to culture than expanding fair use slightly, yet I doubt they'd be in favor of shortening copyright terms in order to bolster the 'vitality of American culture'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2016 @ 2:28pm

Re: Not Surprising
You do realize the "but but but Google" argument is pretty tired at this point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]