Google Wins Digital Library Suit

[Minimalist]

[Bipolar Bob]

Google needs to pay those authors...period. It is basically theft. If a local library needs the authors permission or to fairly compensate an author to scan books then Google needs to do so too. Also, many authors make money on digital copies of their work, if Google freely copies and distributes these works then they are guilty of piracy. So if anyone here gets bother by the man for downloading or uploading pirated crap use whatever defense Google used...you were creating a library.

[Minimalist]

Because Google only shows snippets from the books in its database, Chin reasoned it would be difficult for anyone to read any of the works in their entirety by repeatedly entering different search requests.

The judge also concluded that Google's digital book aspirations fit the description of a "transformative" purpose that U.S. courts have determined is allowed under copyright law.

"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," Chin wrote.

I've got to go with the judge on this one. He's read the law.

[Doubting Thomas]

Also, many authors make money on digital copies of their work, if Google freely copies and distributes these works then they are guilty of piracy.

No, they're not. If you or I copy copyrighted work, it's piracy. When a multi-million dollar corporation does it, they're "building a digital library." The difference is highly-paid lawyers.