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

Judge: Aereo Case Was Decided Incorrectly, Because I Don't Like Previous Ruling

from the interesting-legal-theory dept

Back in April, Aereo won its appeal, saying that its system to allow people to watch broadcast TV over the internet, via an individual antenna (each customer gets their own antenna) is not infringing. As we've said, this is basically an argument of whether or not the length of a cable turns non-infringing activity into infringing activity. Everyone agrees that it's legal to put up your own antenna and watch broadcast TV. For the most part, it's recognized (though not universally agreed) that you can "place shift" the authorized TV that you watch to another place. This is basically what Aereo was doing. But, the networks, completely freaked out that this might mean the very large fees the cable providers pay them for retransmission might go away, insist that this must be illegal, because, basically, they really like the money they get from cable companies and anything that takes away that revenue stream must be illegal. Except, both the district court and the appeals court rejected that, in large part relying heavily on the important Cablevision ruling, which allowed Cablevision to offer a remote DVR service to its customers.

The networks, of course, asked the appeals court to rehear the case en banc (with a full panel of 11 judges, rather than just the 3 who heard the case initially). That's now been rejected, but Judge Denny Chin, who has a bit of a history siding with the TV guys against upstart innovators is pretty upset about this. Chin was the dissenting judge in the original ruling on Aereo, and he's also the judge who ruled against ivi -- a startup that tried to do something somewhat similar to Aereo, but through different means. Also, before Chin was on the appeals court, as a district court judge, he made the original ruling in that key Cablevision case, in which (shocker) he sided with the networks over Cablevision. In other words, every time this kind of issue has come up, Chin sides with the broadcasters and against the innovators.

Chin's dissent from the decision to reject an en banc rehearing is quite incredible. I saw someone quote the following line, which I had through was a joking paraphrase of Chin's argument, but this is verbatim from the dissent:

Aereo's reliance on Cablevision is misplaced because, in my view, Cablevision was wrongly decided.

That's a fairly startling admission. Here's a precedent, and the judge is saying that the company can't rely on the precedent because he doesn't agree with the precedent. That's not how this is supposed to work. Yes, Chin may have had his feelings hurt because the appeals court overturned his original ruling in Cablevision, and now the other judges have gone against him, but that does not mean he gets to simply ignore the ruling because he doesn't like it.

Most of Chin's dissent is basically a close copy of the networks' arguments, which is, again "the networks make money this way, and how dare some company undercut their business model." This is kind of weird. The very nature of disruptive innovation is that it often undercuts existing business models. But that's called competition. It's not supposed to be illegal. Chin also approvingly cites his own ruling in the ivi case, where he accepted -- without question and with no factual basis beyond the claims of the networks -- that allowing such startups to thrive would harm their rights.

But, the crux of his argument is simply that he's feeling hurt that his Cablevision ruling got overturned, and even if it's precedent, Aereo shouldn't be able to rely on it, because Chin wants to overturn it:

The panel majority's decision is based entirely on Cablevision. In my view, however, as some of the broadcasters argue, Cablevision was wrongly decided. Of course, I was the district judge in Cablevision, and I recognize that the panel was bound by the Court's decision in Cablevision, to the extent the decision is controlling. But rehearing these cases en banc would also give the Court the opportunity to reconsider Cablevision.

Basically, I lost last time around, and even though Aereo is relying on the winning side, that shouldn't be allowed, because I'm still bitter that I lost, and I'd like to overturn Cablevision first, and then use that to shut down Aereo too.

It's difficult to see how this is an unbiased judge, looking at these cases impartially.

Filed Under: copyright, denny chin, retransmission
Companies: aereo, cablevision, ivi