Delip Rao wrote:
>>>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?
It could be construed as both, if things evolve analogously to the music
file-sharing phenomenon. (Napster was shut down by the settlement of their
lawsuit, and now the recording label industry is reportedly going after
individual downloaders by the thousands.)
Note that my comment above was in response to a question about the
difference between the court's construal of what Google is doing if Google
loses the lawsuit and the way other currently common uses (such as brief
academic citation) might then be construed under the new precedent. In
fact, the litigation is still underway and Google might win.
IANAL. TINLA.
-- Mark
Mark P. Line
Polymathix
San Antonio, TX
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2006 - 21:09:49 MET DST