[tokenadult]

It's good that this news report includes a citation to the case decision at the end of the article. That citation is

Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 13-4829, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Manhattan)

The ruling applies, of course, only to the United States, and only if it is not reversed by the United States Supreme Court. But I think the argument that Google's use of the book content is not market-destroying for book authors is correct, as I have bought books after discovering them through Google Books searches.

[jessriedel]

It has to be that these sorts of lawsuits are supported by a small minority of authors, right? It's crazy. Who has ever planned to buy a book and thought "hey, I'll just use the Google Book Search to read through it"? I've never heard of 99% of the books that turn up on these searches, and I have ended up buying at least 2 or 3 of them.

[officemonkey]

Yesterday I downloaded a sample of "Ball Four" (one of the books mentioned in the article) from Amazon. No doubt Amazon has permission to do such a thing, but it is pretty odd for some authors to be worried about one type of sampling and not another kind.

[informedaboutit]

The ruling - http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/fda8f124-b1e...

[dtparr]

Since precedent-wise, it only applies in the Second Circuit (CT, VT, and NY), I wonder if there are any similar cases (or if there's another entity that might try their luck against Google elsewhere, say in the 9th Cir.) that might result in either an a concurrence with the 2nd, or a split that would 'force' SCOTUS to weigh in.

[iso8859-1]

On Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....