>>Presumably, the difference would be that the court
>>will have found that Google's snippets could be
>>pasted back together by the user so as to
>>reconstruct significant portions of the copyrighted
>>work, and that that was not fair use.
So this is construed as a copyright violation by the
user or by Google?
- delip
--- "Mark P. Line" <mark@polymathix.com> wrote:
> Jean-Phi wrote:
> > I'm not a legal expert, but if Google loses the
> case and is prevented
> > from displaying, for free, a snippet of a few
> sentences from a
> > copyrighted book, then I wonder about the
> consequences on things like
> > simply citing a book's paragraph: what's the
> difference between a
> > Google's snippet, and the paragraph I cite in my
> paper, in my book, on
> > on my web site, to refer truthfully to the
> original author's words?
>
> Presumably, the difference would be that the court
> will have found that
> Google's snippets could be pasted back together by
> the user so as to
> reconstruct significant portions of the copyrighted
> work, and that that
> was not fair use. Clearly, no such claim could be
> made about a single
> cited paragraphs in an academic work.
>
>
> > Will I be expected to pay copyright fees for every
> citation?
>
> If case law happened to move in that direction, you
> might be expected to
> pay royalties for any use -- regardless of how the
> Google thing goes down.
> I'd be surprised if it did, though, since I don't
> see any signs that
> they're going to wax that draconian even with
> recorded music.
>
>
> IANAL. TINLA.
>
> -- Mark
>
> Mark P. Line
> Polymathix
> San Antonio, TX
>
>
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://asia.messenger.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2006 - 19:50:09 MET DST