The authors told Google, "No scanning!"
The judge disagreed with a banning.
He said, "It's fair use,
And not (c) abuse."
One wonders what Google is planning.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/16/449172748/googles-book-scanning-project-is-legal-u-s-appeals-court-says
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LEGO Americana Roadshow: Building Across America I just checked out this traveling exhibition from LEGO and was quite impressed. The scale ... -
Merry Christmas, everyone!
-
When we let politics trump science, people are needlessly put in harm's way. http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/self-censoring-fears...
The symbol you are looking for can be found here :
ReplyDelete©
http://www.copypastecharacter.com
It was my understanding that it wasn't the authors, but the publishers, who were throwing the fit, because they wanted Google to pay royalties, even on out-of-print texts.
ReplyDeleteIt seems it was the authors, but to the same effect, maybe?
Regardless, I don't see the sense of their suit... If you search a term and find it is in a print-book with the relevant sample text and a link to retailers, it is visibility for that book, and visibility leads to sales.
Each tome that they scan is a bonus
ReplyDeleteBecause it's another book they can loan us
So the court did decree
It's good for you and me
and the publisher's suit is erroneous!
If you enjoyed these posts any more than you already do, William Wells, I'd have to charge you. ;-]
ReplyDeleteIt's true that I do enjoy verse
ReplyDeletethough a limerick is often a curse
But i find I get on it
like Shakespeare on sonnets
and try my best to do my worst!
:) :) :)
Mind if I invite Amanda Rachelle Warren and Melanie Mills in here, both poets of wondrous repute and much wit? I think they would love this collection you have going Craig Froehle . :)
ReplyDeletei'm peeking! (like all good voyeurs do)
ReplyDelete