[tzs]

> The books were purchased, meaning they got a license to use the book.

This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't think that is correct.

Most books I've seen don't say anything about granting a license so there would be no explicit license that comes with them.

Maybe you could find an implicit license if normal use of a book required a license but it does not. Copyright law allows all the normal uses of a book without requiring permission of the copyright owner. You only need a license when you want to do something that requires permission.

[eclark]

I should have been more explicit; You are completely correct.

I was saying that there's some implied license after first purchase. I believe that was part of the court's decision. Paying for a book (or a library paying) gives you implicit rights to fair use. Github's copies of code were not purchased. They were given by sometimes third party.

So there's likely some room to argue that fair use rights are different enough between previous cases and github.