Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrs99 | Hacker News Reader

i don't think the reasons are convincing. I don't think that it benefits the public is a good reason.

So what is your view on the law? Those with a utilitarian view would probably say that what 'benefits the public' is really the main aim of the legal system. I take it you disagree?

Usually, whether something benefits the public is a policy question for the legislature, not a decision for the courts to make. OTOH, many specific laws include public interest considerations that require courts to make determination of at least some aspect of public interest to apply the law.

And, in this case, the pubic interest aspect comes from the US Constitution ("promote the progress of science and useful arts").

of course i disagree. There are plenty of things that would benefit the public but are illegal. Maybe an infinite number of things.

Seems to be missing the point. Courts pass judgment, typically, on areas of law that are not covered directly by existing legislation. If there was a Federal law saying specifically "You shall not scan and store books without the permission of the author.", it seems unlikely Google would have won. The upthread point wasn't that "benefits the public" was the only criteria for courts to use, just that it was the guiding principle to use in cases of ambiguity.

i don't think there's any ambiguity. that's just my opinion.

Opinions are worthless without a justification.

i don't think any justification is going to change your mind. My opinions are shared by many other people. I know that many people view this issue as black and white, that a corporation should have rights to scan books and use that data to freely help the public and share those books freely to millions of people so they can help authors out by buying tons more of their books.

i think it's more complex than that. authors aren't patent trolls. many spend years upon years creating their work and the fact that they own the work they create puts them at ease and allows them to focus solely on their work. To know that they have control of their work is really necessary support for creating the best environment for authors.

i'm not talking about publishing companies either. An individual author should be able to opt out of being scanned by corporations, whether it benefits him or not, whether it increases his sales or not. That really is his choice. The individual author has a choice to DECREASE sales of his work if he chooses. After all, that is his product that he personally created.

Not to mention the fact that most tend to forget: copyright law in the US was not designed to create "intellectual property" out of thin air, but very explicitly "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". That's the original basis of Fair Use in the US (coming to us from British law) until it was later codified explicitly in the 1970s.

The four factors of fair use (each of which the judge discusses for this case) help balance the rights of the "Authors and Inventors" against the public's, but it's important to always remember that the primary purpose of copyright is advancing the public good.

"It benefits the public" is the only good reason.

Courts are always mindful of public policy while making rulings. So, benefiting public has been a valid reason for a long time. And I think it's a good reason.

Now does this really benefit people or not is another question. I think it does. Do you think it does not?

i don't think it benefits authors. I think searching for a book and reading a few pages and being done with it. That isn't ideal for authors at all. Some people just need to read a few things in the book.

Oh, man, I hope you don't find out about this terrible place called a library where people do that kind of stuff all the time.

Or the bookstore.

but libraries pay for their books. And a library might buy many copies of a popular book.

And they lend them out. Which is considered fair use.

Just like full-text search, now.

As was said by a sibling comment to yours, people do this all the time in bookstores too.

Corollary: Google shows a snippet of text from a website under their link. If what I wanted to find out is contained in that snippet, I won't necessarily click the link. Same thing, but instead of a pointer to a website (which, in this example, just lost a pageview), it's a pointer to an book that you can purchase.

More funnels to conversion mean more books purchased.

you can loan a book out to one person at a time. i think it's a little different.

not every author wants to increase sales. I would rather opt out even if that led to a decrease in sales. I can't make someone else increase sales by making them use my new sales platform for free.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com