Every 4 prong fair use analysis I've seen follows the model Chin does here: outline of applicable law, explicit mention of the four prongs ((1) purpose and character of the use, (2) nature of the copyrighted work, (3) portion used in relation to work as a whole, and (4) effect of the use on market value of copyrighted work), a detailed analysis of each prong, and then an overall assessment, kind of a bird's eye overview of the entire situation.

Chin's paragraph about the benefits is the overall assessment part. That is, it is all four prongs put together, plus any other factors that might apply in this context. OTOH Google's not providing the full text & can't be tricked into doing so are part of the third prong analysis, and the links to legal purchases of the book are part of the fourth prong.

One of the four factors used in the copyright statute to determine whether or not a use is fair use is: "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"

The idea here is to protect stuff like a critic quoting a bits of a book/movie in their discussion of a piece without violating the copyright of that book/movie. If it weren't for the 'snippet' view that prevents easy access to 100% of each scanned book, that factor would have weighed against google here, not for them. While one can only speculate whether that would have been enough to change the outcome, it is a certainty --the judge explicitly describes how, if you're interested-- that google's presentation of less than 100% of the scanned works helped secure this decision.

In the US, "Fair Use" refers to a defense against a copyright violation. Section 107 of the US Copyright statute lists 4 different factors that can be used to determine whether or not a specific use is fair. Judge Chin discusses each factor in detail, then concludes with an excellent summary of why he believes that this project is a fair use:

Depending on how Chin's decision stands up on the inevitable appeal, this paragraph has probably given us some very useful & explicit design considerations to incorporate in projects likely to face similar claims of copyright violation.

Helps a lot, thanks. I see what you mean about the noise level of derivative works, but some of the transcriptions from the Hanover collection appear to be prime specimens of colonial American English, like this one: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/nyhah.html

The short answer is: money. Lots and lots of money, because lyric copyrights will account for up to 50% of the royalties from a tune.

When you're dealing with music sales and (theoretically) getting cuts to artists, lyric authorship & copyright is another piece of the pie, often a substantial one. Essentially, if you have a different person claiming copyright credit for the lyrics, you decrease the royalties earned by the composer of the music part -- the tune, changes, melody, structure.

Look at the credits for a lot of music dating from 1976 to around the mid-90s. Often, as artists developed a career, you will notice that the credited music/lyrics by author names drop from many to just the band member or main artist, whereas in the earliest releases from an artist, you'll many names included in these credits. A standard trick is for industry folks to make "helpful suggestions" that the artist incorporates. Now that suit has become an author, and will get 50% of the royalties from your new hit.

Can you clarify with specific examples of such databases? I work in a somewhat related field, and this comes as news to me. We don't have transcriptions for similar records hundreds of years more recent (and more relevant to our work) than those of the time period you're describing.

Good heavens. Have you not been paying attention to history? There are only two choices for the first commercially successful uses of any new technology: weapons or porn. Instead of complaining, you should be counting your blessings that we still have yet to successfully weaponize porn.

Fair enough, but then that's only part of the picture. The US also undermined democracy, and continues to do so. Specifically, it funded military coups to overthrow democratically elected leaders, repeatedly, often with regimes that brutalized the populace. Take a look at our middle eastern allies: we've spent billions and decades ensuring that people named Saud retain royal power, for example. Iran used to be not only a democracy, but a fairly progressive country... until the US decided a Shah would make us more money.

The reasons for these actions was a fear that the overthrown democracies would have pursued policies that (they think) would have reduced the economic strength of the US. The calculus was, apparently, that the pursuit of US economic interests was more important than the support of democracy.

Given this demonstrated order of priorities --where the generation of material wealth for some is more important than representative government for all-- it's difficult to take claims of the US-as-defender-of-democracy seriously. In reality, the structure of foreign governments has always been a secondary concern to that of how much of a profit they can make for us. (And by "us", I mean those of us wealthy enough to afford lobbyists.)

Have you seen "The Man from Earth"? Super low-budget, no special effects, almost all of the movie is a dialog among a group of people sitting around in a living room... and I believe it is one of the best sci-fi movies to appear in a long, long time.

While this is close, it's inaccurate in an important (albeit minor, in the context of this discussion) way. The term used here is "work for hire," which means that the copyright to an original creation is owned not by the most direct creator, but by the employer.

Under US copyright law, there are two instances in which work for hire applies. First is the fork I believe you're thinking of: if the work is within the regular scope of one's employment. This is an important distinction; it means that if you're working as an animator for the Simpsons, and spend some of your work time writing a program (that has nothing to do with animating the Simpsons), you own the copyright to that program, not your employers. While there will always be billable hours for lawyers to argue over what is within the scope of anyone's employment,no written agreement stating otherwise is required for an employee to own the copyright to something unrelated to work that he/she creates while on the job.

The second fork of work for hire applies to contractors, rather than regular employees. Under this, the work has to fit one of 9 categories, AND there has to be a signed, written agreement (can't be oral) explicitly stating that the work in question is work-for-hire. Point is the written agreement applies only to contractors not employees, and it has to explicitly state that the work is work for hire, not the other way around.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

My concern is not how careful Bolian was, rather it's that he made the decision to place the lives and well being of thousands of other people at risk for something as insignificant as a fleeting bit of attention.

If he had only been risking his own life, I'd have no qualms whatsoever. If he had only been risking the lives of himself and fellow racers who knew that people would be traveling as such speeds, again I'd have no qualms.

Yes I am similarly bothered by typical careless drivers as well, because I think the attitude is similar -- an irresponsible lack of concern for the safety of others while engaging in the very activity that, even when following the rules, presents the highest risk for death and injury.

Who gives a shit about this "speed record"?? This asshole Ed Bolian was willing to risk the lives of everyone else on the road for some silly high score bullshit. There's no difference between this careless fuck and the asshole who killed a mother and her three children while street racing in Philly. http://articles.philly.com/2013-10-31/news/43530258_1_roosevelt-boulevard-khusen-akhmedov-ahmen-holloman

This is not a fucking game. If you want to break speed records, use a track where you'll only risk the lives of those who knowingly expose themselves to this level of danger, rather than innocent people who are just trying to go about their lives. Fuck every last fucking one of these coast to coast 'racers'.

That's uncanny. I'd never heard of the guy before and actually RTFA... and your blind summary is spot-on. Here's a bit of the end of the article:

Your experience, which I will take at face value, isn't the point.

There is an *inherent* appeal in free software to composers, sound designers, producers, and the kinds of creative people who want control over the tools they use in their creations. Think of like painters who could afford drums of whatever paint they'd like, but ultimately prefer to mix their own paints, or the kind of composers and performers who were building their own analog synths in the 60s.

I disagree. I've asked for a clarification if this is incorrect, but it appears he's a professional sysadmin, not a music professional in any capacity. Despite this, he feels comfortable making assertions on the technical requirements for professional musicians.

In terms of *actual* music professionals, successful artists have done much more with much less than Ardour.