After eight years, a big win for Google Books

A judge in Manhattan has dismissed a suit filed by the Authors Guild against Google. 

Reuters
The Google Books app is shown off at Google HQ in Mountain View, Calif., in this file photo. Google on Thursday won dismissal of a long-running lawsuit by authors who accused the Internet search company of digitally copying millions of books for a huge online library without permission.

Way back in 2005, the Authors Guild, an organization that represents American writers, filed suit against Google, alleging that the Mountain View company had used protected content for its book scanning project. Today, in a dramatic end to a legal battle that has stretched on for almost a decade, that lawsuit was dismissed in a Manhattan court by US Circuit Judge Denny Chin

Google's book-scanning "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," Mr. Chin wrote in his opinion. "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."

The Authors Guild had argued that Google was not fairly compensating writers whose books it scanned. (Paul Aiken, the director of the group, has promised to appeal Chin's decision, according to Reuters.) In 2008, Google and the Authors Guild reached a tentative deal, in which authors would be compensated $125 million. But that settlement was rejected in 2011. 

And so the Authors Guild pressed forward in court. 

"This is a big win for Google, and it blesses other search results that Google displays, such as news or images," James Grimmelmann, an intellectual property law professor at University of Maryland, told Reuters today. "It is also a good ruling for libraries and researchers, because the opinion recognizes the public benefit of making books available," he added.

As GigaOM notes, one of the most notable parts of Chin's ruling is his assertion – contrary to what the Authors Guild had argued – that the Google project does not take away from authors' sales. Instead, it could be viewed as a kind of free advertising for writers, Chin implied. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.