Authors Guild Petulantly Whines About How Wrong It Is That The Public Will Benefit From Google Books

from the talk-about-sour-grapes dept

Yesterday we wrote about the fairly unsurprising, but still good, news that the Supreme Court had rejected an attempted appeal by the Authors Guild of the really excellent fair use decision by the 2nd Circuit appeals court over whether or not Google scanning books to build a giant, searchable index was fair use.

It's no surprise that the Authors Guild -- which has been tilting at this particular windmill for over a decade -- was upset about the refusal to hear the case, but I wasn't quite expecting the level of ridiculous sour grapes that were put on display:

“Blinded by the public benefit arguments, the Second Circuit’s ruling tells us that Google, not authors, deserves to profit from the digitization of their books,” said Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild.

Did you get that? The Authors Guild is so completely out of touch that it actually thinks that "public benefit arguments" have no place in copyright disputes, despite the very fact that the Constitutional underpinnings of copyright law is to maximize the public's benefit. And, of course, this all ignores the fact that the vast, vast majority of authors greatly benefit from such a searchable index in that it drives more sales of books.

But, on with the hyperbole:

“Today authors suffered a colossal loss,” said Authors Guild president Roxana Robinson. “We filed the class action lawsuit against Google in September 2005 because, as we stated then, ‘Google’s taking was a plain and brazen violation of copyright law.’ We believed then and we believe now that authors should be compensated when their work is copied for commercial purposes.”

What you believe, and what the law says, are different. And that was the case back in 2005 when you filed the suit just like many of us said at the time.

“The price of this short-term public benefit may well be the future vitality of American culture,” continued Rasenberger. “Authors are already among the most poorly paid workers in America; if tomorrow’s authors cannot make a living from their work, only the independently wealthy or the subsidized will be able to pursue a career in writing, and America’s intellectual and artistic soul will be impoverished.”

This is ridiculous on so many levels. First, most authors cannot make a living today because most books don't sell. That's not the fault of Google Books. In fact, as noted time and time again, Google Books acts as a discovery mechanism for many books and increases sales (I've bought dozens of books thanks to finding them via Google Book Search). Second, the gloom and doom predictions of legacy industries over new technologies is time-worn and has never been even remotely correct.

What Rasenberger leaves out of her ignorant whine is the fact that in the time that Google Books has existed, the number of authors has increased massively. No, they're not all making a living, but the purpose of copyright law is to incentivize the creation of new works for the public, and the public is getting an astounding amount of new works -- a totally unprecedented amount of new works actually -- and it's got nothing to do with anything the Authors Guild has done.

And, of course, the Authors Guild still won't give up, promising to fight this issue in other courts, hoping to get a circuit split that the Supreme Court will review:

Following the Supreme Court’s order, the Guild vowed to remain vigilant to ensure that the Second Circuit’s ruling is not taken as carte blanche for unfettered digitization of books. “The Second Circuit decision took pains to highlight that fair use was found based on the strict display restrictions and security measures currently employed by Google,” said Authors Guild general counsel Jan Constantine. “We’ll continue to monitor Google and its library partners to ensure these standards are met, as we will take appropriate action to ensure that fair use isn’t abused.”

To ensure that fair use isn't abused? Lovely people at the Authors Guild who outright declare themselves against public benefit, and then worry about the "expansion" and "abuse" of fair use. Does no one at the Authors Guild recognize that their authors are protected by fair use as well and many of them rely on it all the time? Who would ever join such a backwards looking and thinking organization?

Filed Under: 2nd circuit, book scanning, copyright, fair use, google books, public benefit, supreme court
Companies: authors guild, google

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

from the nice-to-see dept

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.

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

And Of Course: Authors Guild Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Fair Use Ruling On Google Books

from the fighting-technology-every-step-of-the-way dept

Back in October, the 2nd Circuit appeals court issued a really wonderful fair use win on the long-running (and somewhat ridiculous) lawsuit that the Authors Guild had filed against Google Books. The decision -- written by Judge Pierre Leval, who has long been a key player on issues of fair use -- was decisive and clear. It capped a ridiculously long process, in which the Authors Guild lost at every stage, wasting the money of its members. The ruling was quite clear that Google Books was transformative and did not compete with the original works. It also highlighted how it benefited the public. A key part of the ruling:

The ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding, which copyright seeks to achieve by giving potential creators exclusive control over copying of their works, thus giving them a financial incentive to create informative, intellectually enriching works for public consumption. This objective is clearly reflected in the Constitution’s empowerment of Congress “To promote the Progress of Science . . . by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.” U.S. Const., Art. I, 7sect; 8, cl. 8) (emphasis added). Thus, while authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public, whose access to knowledge copyright seeks to advance by providing rewards for authorship.

We noted at the time that it was likely that the Authors Guild would ask the Supreme Court to rehear the case -- and according to the Washington Post, that is exactly what's happening. The filing claims that this is a massive and unprecedented expansion of fair use, and wants the Supreme Court to fix things:

This case represents an unprecedented judicial expansion of the fair-use doctrine that threatens copyright protection in the digital age. The decision below authorizing mass copying, distribution, and display of unaltered content conflicts with this Court’s decisions and the Copyright Act itself. This case also presents important issues on which the circuits are split, highlighting the need for this Court to act.

As we noted in our post about the original ruling, it's not clear that there's really a circuit split here, no matter what the Authors Guild wants to claim. The Authors Guild tries to manufacture a circuit split by arguing that multiple other courts have said the "transformative use" test requires "new creative expression" but it seems to be making that up. Yes, that's one form of transformative use, but not the only one.

The Supreme Court rejects most petitions to hear cases, so it wouldn't surprise me if it turns this one down as well. That would be the best overall result. The 2nd Circuit ruling is clear and concise -- and given the Supreme Court's history on copyright issues, there's a half-decent chance that even if it came to the right overall decision, the justices would muck it up in some way in the process. Either way, if the Supreme Court does take the case, this will be a key one to follow.

Filed Under: 2nc circuit, book scanning, copyright, fair use, google books, pierre leval, supreme court
Companies: authors guild, google

Appeals Court Gives Google A Clear And Total Fair Use Win On Book Scanning

from the move-on-already dept

The Authors Guild's never-ending lawsuit against Google for its book scanning project has been hit with yet another blow. The 2nd Circuit appeals court has told the Authors Guild (once again) that Google's book scanning is transformative fair use. This is not a surprise. Though this case has gone through many twists and turns, a few years ago it was also before the 2nd Circuit on a separate issue (over the appropriateness of it being a class action lawsuit) and the 2nd Circuit panel ignored that question, saying that it shouldn't even matter because it seemed like this was fair use. Thus it was sent back to the district court, where Judge Danny Chin correctly said that the scanning was fair use. That ruling was appealed, and the AG trotted out some truly nutty legal theories (arguing that it wasn't fair use because someone like Aaron Swartz might hack into Google's computers and free the books).

These arguments did not work. The 2nd Circuit has affirmed the lower court ruling and given another nice appellate ruling establishing the importance of fair use -- and a reminder that, yes, commercial uses can still be fair use:

Google’s making of a digital copy to provide a search function is a transformative use, which augments public knowledge by making available information about Plaintiffs’ books without providing the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by the Plaintiffs’ copyright interests in the original works or derivatives of them. The same is true, at least under present conditions, of Google’s provision of the snippet function. Plaintiffs’ contention that Google has usurped their opportunity to access paid and unpaid licensing markets for substantially the same functions that Google provides fails, in part because the licensing markets in fact involve very different functions than those that Google provides, and in part because an author’s derivative rights do not include an exclusive right to supply information (of the sort provided by Google) about her works. Google’s profit motivation does not in these circumstances justify denial of fair use. Google’s program does not, at this time and on the record before us, expose Plaintiffs to an unreasonable risk of loss of copyright value through incursions of hackers. Finally, Google’s provision of digital copies to participating libraries, authorizing them to make non-infringing uses, is non-infringing, and the mere speculative possibility that the libraries might allow use of their copies in an infringing manner does not make Google a contributory infringer. Plaintiffs have failed to show a material issue of fact in dispute.

There are some really great statements in the ruling, which isn't a huge surprise, given that it was done by Judge Pierre Leval, who has written some of the most thoughtful things about fair use. For example, he clearly and directly notes that the purpose of copyright is to benefit the public:

The ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding, which copyright seeks to achieve by giving potential creators exclusive control over copying of their works, thus giving them a financial incentive to create informative, intellectually enriching works for public consumption. This objective is clearly reflected in the Constitution’s empowerment of Congress “To promote the Progress of Science . . . by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8) (emphasis added). Thus, while authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public, whose access to knowledge copyright seeks to advance by providing rewards for authorship.

This, of course, is the same argument that we've made here in the past many times (often mocked by copyright extremists). Notice that the section of the Constitutional copyright clause that Leval chose to highlight is the ever-important "to promote the progress" language. In a footnote, Leval similarly notes that UK copyright law actually comes with a similar preamble: "for the Encouragement of Learning."

From there, Leval has a short discussion on the history of fair use, and the key Supreme Court rulings on it, before jumping into the necessary four factors, which is carefully written and nuanced. It's worth reading in its entirety, but a few snippets. First, the court finds that the use of search here makes the Google books program transformative:

the purpose of Google’s copying of the original copyrighted books is to make available significant information about those books, permitting a searcher to identify those that contain a word or term of interest, as well as those that do not include reference to it. In addition, through the ngrams tool, Google allows readers to learn the frequency of usage of selected words in the aggregate corpus of published books in different historical periods. We have no doubt that the purpose of this copying is the sort of transformative purpose described in Campbell as strongly favoring satisfaction of the first factor.

Then there's the question of whether Google's snippet view is fair use, and again, the court finds that it is:

Google’s division of the page into tiny snippets is designed to show the searcher just enough context surrounding the searched term to help her evaluate whether the book falls within the scope of her interest (without revealing so much as to threaten the author’s copyright interests). Snippet view thus adds importantly to the highly transformative purpose of identifying books of interest to the searcher. With respect to the first factor test, it favors a finding of fair use

But, you say, Google is a big for-profit business, and doing this to make money, so how can that be fair use? By this point, we've debunked the "commercial use can't be fair use" myth so many times on Techdirt it almost doesn't seem worth repeating, but since people always bring it up... here's what the court says:

While we recognize that in some circumstances, a commercial motivation on the part of the secondary user will weigh against her, especially, as the Supreme Court suggested, when a persuasive transformative purpose is lacking... we see no reason in this case why Google’s overall profit motivation should prevail as a reason for denying fair use over its highly convincing transformative purpose, together with the absence of significant substitutive competition, as reasons for granting fair use. Many of the most universally accepted forms of fair use, such as news reporting and commentary, quotation in historical or analytic books, reviews of books, and performances, as well as parody, are all normally done commercially for profit.

On the second factor (the nature of the work) the court notes that it's somewhat unimportant here, but still leans towards fair use.

While each of the three Plaintiffs’ books in this case is factual, we do not consider that as a boost to Google’s claim of fair use. If one (or all) of the plaintiff works were fiction, we do not think that would change in any way our appraisal. Nothing in this case influences us one way or the other with respect to the second factor considered in isolation. To the extent that the “nature” of the original copyrighted work necessarily combines with the “purpose and character” of the secondary work to permit assessment of whether the secondary work uses the original in a “transformative” manner, as the term is used in Campbell, the second factor favors fair use not because Plaintiffs’ works are factual, but because the secondary use transformatively provides valuable information about the original, rather than replicating protected expression in a manner that provides a meaningful substitute for the original.

Factor three (the amount of the work) is obviously one that the Authors Guild leaned heavily on, but the court is not convinced that it weighs against Google here either, noting that because the use is transformative, copying the entire work is necessary. The argument here is that the real intent of factor three is to see if the defendant copied more than is necessary for the transformative use, and that's not true with Google books:

As with HathiTrust, not only is the copying of the totality of the original reasonably appropriate to Google’s transformative purpose, it is literally necessary to achieve that purpose. If Google copied less than the totality of the originals, its search function could not advise searchers reliably whether their searched term appears in a book (or how many times).

On the question of snippets, the court again finds for Google noting that it's only displaying a small portion of the work -- again, no more than necessary. The court notes that if snippets were done differently, it could impact the fair use analysis, but that Google does a good job of not revealing too much.

Without doubt, enabling searchers to see portions of the copied texts could have determinative effect on the fair use analysis. The larger the quantity of the copyrighted text the searcher can see and the more control the searcher can exercise over what part of the text she sees, the greater the likelihood that those revelations could serve her as an effective, free substitute for the purchase of the plaintiff’s book. We nonetheless conclude that, at least as presently structured by Google, the snippet view does not reveal matter that offers the marketplace a significantly competing substitute for the copyrighted work.

Google has constructed the snippet feature in a manner that substantially protects against its serving as an effectively competing substitute for Plaintiffs’ books. In the Background section of this opinion, we describe a variety of limitations Google imposes on the snippet function. These include the small size of the snippets (normally one eighth of a page), the blacklisting of one snippet per page and of one page in every ten, the fact that no more than three snippets are shown—and no more than one per page—for each term searched, and the fact that the same snippets are shown for a searched term no matter how many times, or from how many different computers, the term is searched. In addition, Google does not provide snippet view for types of books, such as dictionaries and cookbooks, for which viewing a small segment is likely to satisfy the searcher’s need. The result of these restrictions is, so far as the record demonstrates, that a searcher cannot succeed, even after long extended effort to multiply what can be revealed, in revealing through a snippet search what could usefully serve as a competing substitute for the original.

Finally, the all-important fourth factor (the impact on the market). Again, the court finds in favor of Google, noting how unlikely it is that Google's book project is a substitute for actually getting a book:

Especially in view of the fact that the normal purchase price of a book is relatively low in relation to the cost of manpower needed to secure an arbitrary assortment of randomly scattered snippets, we conclude that the snippet function does not give searchers access to effectively competing substitutes. Snippet view, at best and after a large commitment of manpower, produces discontinuous, tiny fragments, amounting in the aggregate to no more than 16% of a book. This does not threaten the rights holders with any significant harm to the value of their copyrights or diminish their harvest of copyright revenue.

Yes, the court notes, it's possible that it might lead to some lost sales, but that's not enough to find against fair use -- especially since in those cases, it probably means that the amount of information sought was not protectable by copyright in the first place:

the type of loss of sale envisioned above will generally occur in relation to interests that are not protected by the copyright. A snippet’s capacity to satisfy a searcher’s need for access to a copyrighted book will at times be because the snippet conveys a historical fact that the searcher needs to ascertain. For example, a student writing a paper on Franklin D. Roosevelt might need to learn the year Roosevelt was stricken with polio. By entering “Roosevelt polio” in a Google Books search, the student would be taken to (among numerous sites) a snippet from page 31 of Richard Thayer Goldberg’s The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1981), telling that the polio attack occurred in 1921. This would satisfy the searcher’s need for the book, eliminating any need to purchase it or acquire it from a library. But what the searcher derived from the snippet was a historical fact. Author Goldberg’s copyright does not extend to the facts communicated by his book. It protects only the author’s manner of expression.

I'd also argue that if we're talking about the theoretical rare cases where it leads to a lost sale, it should be noted that it's probably just as likely that Google Books leads to more sales as people find snippets of books that make them want to buy the full book (I've personally bought a few books because of snippets found through Google's book search.) But the court doesn't go there.

The court then takes on the question of whether or not Google has deprived the Authors Guild of a derivative right to create or license their own search and snippets features. The court dismisses this argument with ease, reminding the Authors Guild of the important fact that fair use is not infringement, and nothing in copyright includes a special right to limit the ability to search or create snippets:

There is no merit to this argument. As explained above, Google does not infringe Plaintiffs’ copyright in their works by making digital copies of them, where the copies are used to enable the public to get information about the works, such as whether, and how often they use specified words or terms (together with peripheral snippets of text, sufficient to show the context in which the word is used but too small to provide a meaningful substitute for the work’s copyrighted expression). The copyright resulting from the Plaintiffs’ authorship of their works does not include an exclusive right to furnish the kind of information about the works that Google’s programs provide to the public. For substantially the same reasons, the copyright that protects Plaintiffs’ works does not include an exclusive derivative right to supply such information through query of a digitized copy.

Finally, the court laughs off the argument that an Aaron Swartz like hacker might free all of the files in Google's database:

While Plaintiffs’ claim is theoretically sound, it is not supported by the evidence....

Google has documented that Google Books’ digital scans are stored on computers walled off from public Internet access and protected by the same impressive security measures used by Google to guard its own confidential information. As Google notes, Plaintiffs’ own security expert praised these security systems, remarking that “Google is fortunate to have ample resources and top-notch technical talents” that enable it to protect its data. JA 1558, 1570. Nor have Plaintiffs identified any thefts from Google Books (or from the Google Library Project). Plaintiffs seek to rebut this record by quoting from Google’s July 2012 SEC filing, in which the company made legally required disclosure of its potential market risks.26 Google’s prudent acknowledgment that “security breaches could expose [it] to a risk of loss . . . due to the actions of outside parties, employee error, malfeasance, or otherwise,” however, falls far short of rebutting Google’s demonstration of the effective measures it takes to guard against piratical hacking. Google has made a sufficient showing of protection of its digitized copies of Plaintiffs’ works to carry its burden on this aspect of its claim of fair use and thus to shift to Plaintiffs the burden of rebutting Google’s showing. Plaintiffs’ effort to do so falls far short.

Similarly, the court is unimpressed by the Authors Guild's claim that even if Google's own security is good, the fact that it shares scans with libraries who donate books to be scanned, opens up a new line of attack.

Although Plaintiffs describe the arrangement between Google and the libraries in more nefarious terms, those arrangements are essentially that each participant library has contracted with Google that Google will create for it a digital copy of each book the library submits to Google, so as to permit the library to use its digital copy in a non-infringing fair use manner. The libraries propose to use their digital copies to enable the very kinds of searches that we here hold to be fair uses in connection with Google’s offer of such searches to the Internet public, and which we held in HathiTrust to be fair uses when offered by HathiTrust to its users. The contract between Google and each of the participating libraries commits the library to use its digital copy only in a manner consistent with the copyright law, and to take precautions to prevent dissemination of their digital copies to the public at large.

In these circumstances, Google’s creation for each library of a digital copy of that library’s already owned book in order to permit that library to make fair use through provision of digital searches is not an infringement. If the library had created its own digital copy to enable its provision of fair use digital searches, the making of the digital copy would not have been infringement. Nor does it become an infringement because, instead of making its own digital copy, the library contracted with Google that Google would use its expertise and resources to make the digital conversion for the library’s benefit.

As the court points out, sure it's possible that a library might use such files in an infringing matter, but if that happens, then the copyright holders can go after that library. They can't go after Google for the theoretical possibility that someone else might infringe a copyright at some future date.

And, in case you were wondering, there was no dissent at all. This was a unanimous decision by all three judges on the panel, giving yet another complete victory to Google saying that its book scanning project is fair use -- and, as an appeals court ruling, is useful in creating precedent in the all important 2nd Circuit (with some pretty damn good quotes for future cases). This is a big and clear win for fair use. It's likely that the Authors Guild will try to appeal to the Supreme Court, but without a clear circuit split, it's unclear if the Supreme Court would bother to take up the case.

Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, fair use, google books
Companies: authors guild, google

Authors Guild Gives Up Trying To Sue Libraries For Digitally Scanning Book Collection

from the about-time dept

Back in June we wrote about how the Second Circuit appeals court totally demolished the Authors Guild's arguments against a bunch of university libraries for scanning their book collections digitally, in order to enable better searching of the contents. The lawsuit was against Hathitrust, an organization set up to manage the book scanning program for a group of university libraries. In 2012, a district court said that what the libraries/Hathitrust were doing was obviously fair use and the appeals court re-enforced that strongly. The Authors Guild is basically giving up in this case, saying that should the libraries change their practices, it may want to revisit the issue. But for now, it's giving up the case while "reserving" its position.

This is hardly a surprise. However, while it's given up on the Hathitrust case, the case against Google for basically the same thing is still ongoing. And, yes, it's so far lost there as well, though that case is on appeal and was just argued recently -- including making bizarre references to Aaron Swartz as some sort of proof that if Google scans books, someone may hack them and leak all those books to the world.

We'll see how the appeals court rules in that case, but if I had to predict, I doubt this one will turn out well for the Authors Guild. Still, it's likely that the Authors Guild recognizes that if it's going to take one of these cases to the Supreme Court, it has a better shot against Google directly, rather than a bunch of university libraries...

Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, fair use
Companies: authors guild, google, hathitrust

Authors Guild Argues That Google Books Should Be Infringing Because Aaron Swartz

from the wait,-what?!? dept

The saga of the Authors Guild v. Google Books continues to make its way through the courts. This has been going on for years and years, and we don't need to rehash all of the background, other than a few of the more recent situations. Last year, the case went to the 2nd Circuit appeals court, supposedly to discuss the Authors Guild's desire to make its case into a class action lawsuit. However, the appeals court judges basically ignored that issue, and said it was meaningless since it seemed pretty clear that Google Books was fair use. Thus, it sent the case back to the lower court asking it to determine if Google Books is fair use. The argument is that, if it's fair use, whether or not it's a class action is moot. The lower court dutifully declared Google Books fair use a year ago.

Now the case is back before the appeals court as the Authors Guild is insisting loudly that it's not fair use. Thankfully, the judges appear to be very, very skeptical. Perhaps this isn't a surprise, since they were the ones who last year were so focused on the fair use point. It seems clear that Judge Pierre Leval -- known for his support of fair use -- wasn't very interested in the Authors Guild bringing up false arguments that because Google makes money, Google Books can't be fair use:

In his argument Wednesday, attorney Paul Smith quickly sought to differentiate the Guild’s case against Google from its unsuccessful HathiTrust case, citing Google’s commercial nature. But almost immediately, Judge Pierre Leval shut him down, telling Smith he would not succeed by arguing that Google’s commercial nature precluded fair use. Smith, however, pressed on, arguing that Google’s scanning deprived authors of a potential market to license books for search. Again, Leval pushed back, noting the transformative nature of the use is what mattered, not whether somebody might potentially pay to make that use.

Another summary, from Courthouse News, notes that Leval compared Google to the NY Times:

Leval warned that Smith "would lose" the case if his argument was premised on the fact that "Google, like The New York Times, is a profit-motivated enterprise."

It makes no difference that, unlike Google, the Times stands to gain "dwindling, small profits" as opposed to Google's billions, he added.

Leval also, thankfully, was pretty clear in rejecting the idea that just because publishers could find someone to license a work it means everything needs to be licensed:

Smith argued that Google's business model prevented authors from licensing their books to companies like Microsoft, which he said was creating a licensed database before Google Books arrived.

"The test is not how transformative is the use," Smith said. "The test is this the type of use that would be licensed."

Strongly disagreeing with that point, Leval said. "You'd always find someone who would be willing to pay [a licensing fee] to avoid a lawsuit."

However, the craziest argument of all came from the Authors Guild's lawyers in which they tried to point to Aaron Swartz as a reason why Google Books shouldn't be fair use. The argument here is a bit convoluted: Google points out that it only shows snippets, not large swaths of scanned text. The Authors Guild then counters that maybe, just maybe, some enterprising hacker might figure out how to break into the backend and release all the text... because Aaron Swartz:

Google Books avoids copyright violations by only allowing users to read portions of books that match their searches, but the Authors Guild raised the possibility of hacker disseminating the digitized books in full.

Waxman emphasized that this has never happened in the history of Google Books.

In rebuttal, Smith said that he mentioned this concern in light of "an MIT student" distributing academic articles from a university database because he believed, "Information should be free."

This is clearly a reference to Swartz, but it's wrong in all sorts of ways (including that Swartz was never an MIT student). Swartz also never "distributed" those academic articles. He merely downloaded them. It's unclear if he actually intended to distribute them or not. He also didn't hack the system. He had full access to the articles he was downloading. And he didn't do it because "information should be free." As we've noted, that phrase tends to be a bogus strawman that copyright system supporters toss up to mock anyone who is in favor of fixing copyright law's problems.

No matter what, it clearly has no relevance whatsoever to the case at hand and whether or not book scanning to create a searchable index is fair use. The Authors Guild has been flailing about wildly for a while, and dredging up Aaron Swartz just seems to show how ridiculously desperate it's become.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, book scanning, commercial use, copyright, fair use, google books, pierre leval, transformative use
Companies: authors guild, google

Hypocritical Authors Guild Photocopies Author's Book While Claiming That Scanning Works Is Infringement

from the oops dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the big win for fair use, as the appeals court ruled against the Authors Guild and said that libraries scanning books in their collection to make a searchable index is fair use. Hilariously, the Authors Guild is in complete denial about this ruling, putting out a statement claiming it was "not a total victory for either side" and that the ruling was "narrow." Except, that's not true. Yes, the Court sent back a tiny part of the case, but if it wasn't a "complete" victory for libraries, book scanning and fair use, it was, at the very least a 95% victory.

Still, the eagle-eyed sleuths at 5 Useful Articles have spotted an absolutely hilarious exchange that happened during one of the depositions in the case. The deposition was of Peter Hirtle (full disclosure: I know Hirtle a bit, and he once invited me to speak at an event, though I was unable to go -- though until now I had no idea he was even a part of this case in any way). Hirtle, who has spent many years as an archivist and policy advisor for the Cornell University Library, also happens to be an author. At one point, the lawyers for the Authors Guild apparently brought in a bunch of copies of Mr. Hirtle's book. Photocopies. I think you can see where this is going. If you can't read that, well, I'm just going to have to transcript it out. Lawyers Goldman and Rosenthal represent the Authors Guild, while Potter and Roth represent the Hathitrust and Cornell respectively.

MR. ROTH: I see you've made multiple copies of Mr. Hirtle's book.
MR. GOLDMAN: Yes.
Mr. ROTH: That is in copyright and for sale in bookstores.
MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. Yes.
MR. POTTER: You don't think it raises any copyright concerns?
MR. ROSENTHAL: I don't think this is an appropriate question.
MR. GOLDMAN: No, I think it's also -- I'm not even going to engage in that.
MR. ROTH: Note our objection. These books could have been purchased. And given the subject matter of the lawsuit, it's quite ironic that you'd be using multiple copies of a book in copyright.
MR. GOLDMAN: It's published under a creative commons license. It's not attribution and noncommercial.
MR. ROSENTHAL: Why don't we just destroy the copy that we gave Mr. Hirtle's lawyer and to anybody else in the room who wants a copy other than the one we marked for the thing. If they really don't want to have copies for purposes of fairness in the deposition, then we'll just get rid of the extra copies. That's fine. You want us to take back Mr. Potter's copy and destroy it?
MR. ROTH: I'm not going to give you advice.
MR. ROSENTHAL: Okay. I'm going to take these -- let the record show I'm taking these extra copies and I'm going to put them in our shredder which is in the next room. Anybody who wants to come watch me do it, may be welcome to come do it. And no one has even looked at those. So there you go.
MR. POTTER: I guess if no one else looks at something, it's not infringement? That's an interesting theory.

That last line is the real zinger -- since a big part of the Authors Guild's argument in the lawsuit was that even if no one looks at the scanned works, it's still infringement merely because they made a copy. And, yes, the Creative Commons license around the book certainly suggests that the Authors Guild's lawyers did not, in fact, infringe on Hirtle's copyright, but it does show, yet again, how frequently it seems that copyright maximalists rush to easily copy something when it suits their needs.

I'm reminded, of course, of that time when the MPAA was caught making unauthorized copies of the film, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which skewered the MPAA and its practices. The MPAA, in that case, insisted that it could make such copies "because it had implications for our employees." Yet, this was the same MPAA that insisted that "all forms of piracy are illegal and carry serious legal consequences." It also was going around at the time telling school children "if you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it." And its former boss, Jack Valenti, once (incorrectly) insisted that fair use doesn't exist.

There's something deeper here. People copy stuff all the time, because it's a natural and normal thing to do. People make copies because it's convenient and it serves a purpose -- and quite often they know that doing so causes no harm in those situations. This is an intrinsic understanding. It's so intrinsic that folks at the MPAA and Authors Guild do it without even realizing it. But it's part of what makes their hardline position so ridiculous.

Filed Under: book scanning, copies, copyright, creative commons, peter hirtle
Companies: authors guild, hathitrust

Authors Guild Loses Book Scanning Case Once Again

from the because-book-scanning-is-fair-use dept

The Authors Guild simply won't give up on its quixotic attack on modern technology. Even after losing both of its book scanning cases -- one against the Hathitrust (a collection of university libraries) and the other against Google -- it appealed both rulings. This morning, the ruling in the first of those cases, the Hathitrust one, came out, and it pretty much demolished the Authors Guild's arguments, finding, yet again, that book scanning like this is clearly fair use, though for slightly different reasons than the lower court. But there is plenty of useful stuff in the ruling. First, the court explored whether having a full-text searchable database of all text is fair use and found overwhelming support for that idea:

Turning to the first factor, we conclude that the creation of a full-text searchable database is a quintessentially transformative use. ... [T]he 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. Indeed, we can discern little or no resemblance between the original text and the results of the HDL full-text search.

There is no evidence that the Authors write with the purpose of enabling text searches of their books. Consequently, the full-text search function does not “supersede[] the objects [or purposes] of the original creation,” ... The HDL does not “merely repackage[] or republish[] the original[s],” ... or merely recast “an original work into a new mode of presentation,” .... Instead, by enabling full‐text search, the HDL adds to the original something new with a different purpose and a different character.

In other words, copying all the words in books to create that searchable database is transformative fair use. In fact, the court notes that it "adds a great deal more to the copyrighted works at issue than" other transformative uses that the same court has approved. As for the fact that it copies "all" of the work, and how that impacts the "amount of work" used as a fair use test, the court, thankfully, focuses on the word necessary in exploring if "more of the copyrighted work than necessary" was used -- finding that "for some purposes, it may be necessary to copy the entire copyrighted work" and thus that does not weigh against the third factor in the fair use test.

Because it was reasonably necessary for the HDL to make use of the entirety of the works in order to enable the full-text search function, we do not believe the copying was excessive.

The Authors Guild, somewhat ridiculously, argued that because the full copies are kept on multiple servers, it meant that Hathitrust had "more copies than necessary," but the court brushes that aside by pointing out the value of backups and load-balancing between multiple servers.

But the really big issue comes down to the impact on the market, the fourth factor in the fair use test, and the one that is generally considered to be the most important. The court here makes an important distinction that many people completely miss when analyzing the "impact on the market" question -- which is that the only impact that matters is the impact because the copy serves as a substitute for the original. There are lots of other ways the copy might impact that market that do not matter in this analysis.

To illustrate why this is so, consider how copyright law treats book reviews. Book reviews often contain quotations of copyrighted material to illustrate the reviewer's points and substantiate his criticisms; this is a paradigmatic fair use. And a negative book review can cause a degree of economic injury to the author by dissuading readers from purchasing copies of her book, even when the review does not serve as a substitute for the original. But, obviously, in that case, the author has no cause for complaint under Factor Four: The only market harms that count are the ones that are caused because the secondary use serves as a substitute for the original, not when the secondary use is transformative (as in quotations in a book review).

The Authors Guild tried to get around this by using a popular tactic in copyright/fair use cases: claiming that the use might preclude a future licensing opportunity for the work. Thankfully, the court flat out disagrees with this assertion:

This theory of market harm does not work under Factor Four, because the full‐text search function does not serve as a substitute for the books that are being searched... Thus, it is irrelevant that the Libraries might be willing to purchase licenses in orderto engage in this transformative use (if the use were deemed unfair). Lost licensing revenue counts under Factor Four only when the use serves as a substitute for the original and the full‐text‐search use does not.

The Authors Guild also tested out a more laughable, and less popular theory, that because someone might hack into the database and free the works, it represents a harm on the market. The court is... not impressed, noting (1) that the libraries have taken precautions against this and (2) the risk is "hypothetical" and "conjectural" calling back to the MPAA's claims of "harm" from the VCR, where the Supreme Court rejected as being merely "speculative." In other words, you have to show a real likelihood of harm and not just some fantasy land conjectures.

The court also looks at two other users of the work. First, there's the question of providing digital access to "print-disabled audiences" (e.g., the blind, who may have trouble with ordinary books). It's somewhat ridiculous that the Authors Guild seems to actively fight against making works available in other ways to those it doesn't properly serve, but that's the Authors Guild these days. Once again the court notes that this is a clear fair use. Finally, on the question of "preservation" of the works, the court punts, saying it's unclear if that's really an issue with any of the works involved in this lawsuit. Thus, it's not clear if the Authors Guild even has standing to argue that the preservation of works is copyright infringement. So it sends the argument back down to the district court on that issue.

All in all, yet another good win for fair use -- though, given the Authors Guild's previous actions, it is likely they will appeal this ruling as well. Because that's what the Authors Guild does.

Filed Under: 2nd circuit, book scanning, copyright, fair use, standing, transformative
Companies: authors guild, hathitrust

Authors Guild Apparently Can't Avoid Throwing Away More Money: Appeals Google Books Fair Use Ruling

from the and-on-and-on-it-goes dept

We had hoped that, after nearly a decade of fighting and losing, the nearly complete trouncing of the Authors Guild's ridiculous arguments against Google's book scanning project (by a judge, Denny Chin, known for favoring copyright holders), that the Authors Guild and its proudly luddite leader, Scott Turow, might finally take a step back from the brink and recognize that maybe, just maybe, Google's book scanning project isn't as evil as the organization insists. But, back here in reality, the Authors Guild is going to keep on keeping on with wasting the various dues its authors pay to be members... as it has officially appealed the decision, guaranteeing the throwing of more money away on a stupid lawsuit that serves no purpose other than to make it clear to the world that the Authors Guild is anti-technology, anti-creativity and anti-innovation.

The lawsuit paints the organization as completely out of touch. Plenty of authors have pointed out how incredibly useful Google's book scanning project has been for the sake of research and discovering other books (many of which lead to purchases). Publishers have pointed out that having books scanned by Google increases sales. It's difficult to see what the Authors Guild is arguing for, other than "progress is bad."

Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, fair use, scott turow
Companies: authors guild, google

Google Gets Total Victory Over Authors Guild: Book Scanning Is Fair Use

from the about-freaking-time dept

This one has been a long time coming, but this morning, Judge Denny Chin (who actually has a long history of siding with copyright holders) found that Google's book scanning project is fair use. This is a huge victory in a variety of ways. Five years ago, we thought that Google made a huge mistake in dropping its fair use fight here, in trying to work out a "settlement," which would have harmed fair use by suggesting these kinds of things needed to be licensed, while also setting up a near de facto monopoly on digitizing books. Thankfully, that settlement got rejected, and the fair use argument went back into the courts. Actually, Judge Chin first focused on whether or not this should be allowed as a class action, but in a somewhat surprising move, the appeals court basically ignored that issue entirely and told Judge Chin to answer the fair use question first.

He's now done so and it's a fantastic victory for fair use. The ruling relies on last year's ruling in the similar HathiTrust lawsuit, in which the Authors Guild sued a bunch of universities for banding together to scan books in their libraries. There, the court pointed out that this was clear fair use, and Chin finds the same here with Google. He runs through the well-known "four factors" test, noting that Google's work "is highly transformative," comparing it to other cases, that have said Google's image search efforts are similarly fair use. But he goes further, noting how valuable the end result of scanning these books and making them searchable really is.

Similarly, Google Books is also transformative in the sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas, thereby opening up new fields of research. Words in books are being used in a way they have not been used before. Google Books has created something new in the use of book text -- the frequency of words and trends in their usage provide substantive information.

Google Books does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool to be used to read books. Instead, it "adds value to the original" and allows for "the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings."

Chin also rejects the idea that it can't be fair use just because Google is a commercial enterprise, noting that there are lots of commercial enterprises that rely on fair use, and also pointing out that it's not engaging in "direct commercialization of the copyrighted works," but those works lead to indirect commercial benefit. That's not enough to remove fair use, especially when "the fact is that Google Books serves several important educational purposes."

Chin also points out that these book scans do not act as a market replacement for the books, and actually says that the very argument that it does doesn't make sense.

Google does not sell its scans, and the scans do not replace the books. While partner libraries have the ability to download a scan of a book from their collections, they owned the books already -- they provided the original book to Google to scan. Nor is it likely that someone would take the time and energy to input countless searches to try and get enough snippets to comprise an entire book. Not only is that not possible as certain pages and snippets are blacklisted, the individual would have to have a copy of the book in his possession already to be able to piece the different snippets together in coherent fashion.

In fact, he points out:

To the contrary, a reasonable factfinder could only find that Google Books enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders.

It all comes together in making a very strong argument that Google's book scanning promotes the progress of the arts and sciences just like copyright is supposed to do.

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 underserved populations. It generates new audiences and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits.

This is a huge win for the public, for science, for research and for most authors who will undoubtedly benefit from expanded search and discovery of their works. The Authors Guild, led by luddite Scott Turow, not only look completely out of touch, but they've wasted nearly a decade and a tremendous amount of their members' money on a completely wasted effort to impede the progress of science and knowledge. Isn't it time the Authors Guild had a boss who was forward-looking, rather than trying to pretend he can bring back the world that existed in the 1980s? Even worse, Turow famously is a practicing attorney, as well as a best-selling author. So it's not even like he can claim he was suckered into this by bad lawyers. He should have known better.

Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, denny chin, fair use, scott turow
Companies: authors guild, google