zlacker

IIRC, Google has precedent on this - e.g. scanning full books for search unless the owner explicitly refused.

>>oneeye+(OP)
They are the ultimate ask for forgiveness rather than permission. Copyright has been a thing for a long long time before googs developed their scanning. They were well aware that it should have been an opt-in, but knew they’d never gain traction for their little project. So they bull in a China shop’d their way to a point of too far to stop them.

>>oneeye+(OP)
Your phrasing makes it sound like that's a negative.

I'm honestly surprised they're required to abstain from doing so at the author's request.

You can only read the context of the match after finding the search result after all, not the whole book.

It's an example of significant overreach of intellectual property from how I see it. The robot.txt rational doesn't apply there either, as their scanning does not impact anyone's resources. And it's been published, which makes it public by definition.

>>411111+hf
Oh, I agree with you. I think the whole idea of legislating against machines accessing public content is a very slippery slope.

>>dylan6+O1
They don't even ask for forgiveness. They are "don't admit you've done anything wrong to begin with."

>>dylan6+O1
Copyright is to do with protecting reproduction of works, no? What google has done here is scanning the book and indexed the content, presumably so it makes it easier for users to search books for relevant material. Assuming they don't reproduce large sections of copyrighted works in their search results I don't feel like they're doing anything wrong here.

>>remus+kJ
> Assuming they don't reproduce large sections of copyrighted works

They do (or did). They showed the text around the search term, around a page or so, which made it possible to reconstruct the whole book without that much effort.

>>dylan6+O1
Yet the keep getting sued and keep winning in the courts, at least in the U.S. Seems like they have a pretty good grasp of how the laws work.