[Ads-l] News: Supreme Court declines to hear Authors Guild appeal; Google prevails; Google Books database is legal (for now)

[ADSGarson O'Toole]

Benjamin Barrett wrote:
> Thank you for that update on this case.
>
> For others like me who find the title confusing, it could have been
> better written as “Supreme Court Rejects Authors Guild’s Appeal
> in Google Books Case.”

Yes, I think that the title selected by "Publishers Weekly" was easily
misinterpreted. The title I used in the subject line was designed to
be harder to misinterpret. Nevertheless, the topic is complex. There
have been multiple court cases and legal proceedings were initiated
ten years ago.

One might say: Google Books Wins! But I think that any headline or
paragraph summary will be incomplete and/or opaque.

Garson

> Benjamin Barrett
> Formerly of Seattle, WA
>
>> On 18 Apr 2016, at 09:29, ADSGarson O'Toole <adsgarsonotoole at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Website: Publishers Weekly
>> Article: Supreme Court Rejects Google Books Appeal
>> Author: Andrew Albanese
>> Date: April 18, 2016
>>
>> http://publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/70002-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-appeal.html
>>
>> [Begin excerpt]
>> The decision was not unexpected. Legal observers had given the Authors
>> Guild slim odds at winning a review, given that two separate appeals
>> panels have unanimously affirmed that Google’s scanning and indexing
>> of out-of-print books from library shelves was a fair use under U.S.
>> copyright law.
>> [End excerpt]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org