In my opinion we're now in a situation where the laws are simply outdated. The scale of what companies like Google can do is beyond what the laws can grasp. I'm not a lawyer, or smart for that matter, but to me copyright laws are a joke and really have lost their relevance. Should scale matter in laws? Or should law just be fair regardless of scale? I guess the law surrounding a place like YouTube or other social sharing sites, the site itself is not liable for what is uploaded makes sense on a small, manageable level. When a copyright holder would have no ability to deal with say, 1,000 daily uploads of their copyrighted material? I think scale breaks laws in effect. Google doesn't need to show the whole book, so long as they post the part of the book that you are asking about, and that portion of the book can provide the answer. Thus you can throw all the other pages into the garbage. Take what is needed, avoid copyright issues, and the author of the works can do nothing. Maybe I'm missing something here. If they didn't write it, then there would be no answer and there would be no usage of that content. Like the tusks of an elephant.

Fair Use, as a part of copyright law, is the part which has been "testing the boundaries". I doubt that any two of us will agree on what amount of content is actually allowable under "Fair Use". Is it a percentage of a work? Is it the intent of the work? Is it all but three words of a work? This ruling makes that concept still undefined.

Can you read a whole book in Google books? I'm not sure you can.

Not easily, if ever. I don't go looking for GB but occasionally a link will pop up in a serps. Sometimes I click it if the snippet looks promising. Usually the link takes me to some page in the book that doesn't have what I'm looking for and scrolling down a few pages in search of the info I'm looking for most often brings me to a message saying "no more for you buster, beat it!" :)

So I wander off still in search of the info.

Sometimes I find the info I'm looking for, or enough of a clue that I can refine my base search query enough to get the info from some other source.

.

Can you read a whole book in Google books?

If you mean a current, under-copyright book, no you can't. After some number of pages you'll get a box saying that only part of the book is available. What I haven't figured out yet is whether it's the same pages for everyone, or if they really do scan the entire book and then only let you read some set number of pages. (And then wipe your cookies, change your IP and come back a week later? I dunno.) But you definitely can't read an entire book.

Even if the book is out of copyright in the US, good luck viewing it if you're based in another country. (This is anomalous based on other book-scanning sites which simply go by the rules of whatever country the server is physically located in, and leave it to the visitor to determine if they're allowed to read.) The only exception is if the text is so old that it's guaranteed to be out of copyright everywhere on the planet. And for works of that age, frankly I'd never use a Google scan anyway.

I can see how reading a page or two of a novel wont be much use, but what about a dictionary, or an encyclopedia?
Ive just done a search for the oxford english dictionary and brought it up, and then searched inside for the word "dictionary" and got the relevant definition up.

So you could argue that google are supplying every single definition from the book. Surely that goes way beyond fair use.

That's a tough one. Definitions cannot be copyrighted, just as data cannot be copyrighted. However, the layout and presentation, with accompanying expansion/annotations, page number (believe it or not) CAN be copyrighted. Showing a single definition in a dictionary is the very heart of Fair Use.

What book authors are protesting is the wholesale scanning (and using libraries -- many of them public or state/federal) of books, periodicals and scientific reporting. Google made no attempt to obtain the works first before scanning. This is a small aspect of the complaint, but still a point of contention.

While SCOTUS kicked the can with this ruling at this time, the issue has not been settled.

Link to the case here from BBC -

Google wins copyright battle over books
[bbc.co.uk...]

They could scan every mechanics book or fixit book and when searcher asks a question, can that portion of the book be displayed under fair use? I would think it would be like a news story, if you Google it, I don't think they can show you the paper article. But a book? I'm sure I've seen this in the recent past where a book page was used as the "answer" in the SERPS. They can show one page out of 400, and that's fair use? However I don't need to buy the book so long as Google can provide me the page or paragraph that I really need. I'm likely looking at this too simplistically. I wouldn't think that the core issue is whether Google will allow people to read a 200 page novel online for free is it? I would be more worried if I wrote a book on how to do something. That's a gold mine to an answer machine that can file and index all those pages and just pluck as needed under fair use. The answer box is plucking from websites, so why not books too? There may even be illustrations!

Google wins copyright battle over books

Not true. Case is not been settled, SCOTUS merely said they would not take it up for review, which means it can come back at a later date. What HAS happened is that there is no change to the lower court decision.

Google did not win. They dodged a bullet.

Yeah, I know it sounds argumentative and anti-G and all that but that's not it. These things need to be DECIDED and at this point in this current case it has NOT, only allowed to continue. Reality is that the opposing side (plaintiff) will have to regroup, rethink their legal premise, and REFINANCE to make that happen. In that regard I suspect the question is settled in that g's money bank is probably that much larger than the plaintiff's. (Realistic)

Ive just done a search for the oxford english dictionary

What edition? Most of the original OED is public domain in the US. (Don't know how UK rules work, since there certainly wasn't a personal author!) And in general, though there are some odd exceptions, it was prepared in alphabetical order.

I don't need to buy the book so long as Google can provide me the page or paragraph that I really need

Mm, well, how often do you buy a book in order to get information that's contained in a single paragraph? That's what libraries are for.

Another look from the Register:

Authors are disturbed by the expansion of the "transformation" doctrine – the legal defense used to support taking-without-permission so that liability isn't incurred, which falls under fair use. The doctrine has broadened so much that the copy doesn't need to be transformed at all, the writers argue, it's a straight copy from one medium to another. The justification is that Google Books is a search tool, not a direct replacement for visiting a library.

"Courts have been forced into this position because the Supreme Court has only given the lower courts one tool in the toolbox, and that tool is the transformative use test. It's the typical 'square peg in a round hole' problem," argues the Copyright Alliance's Keith Kupferschmid.

But is it the best the internet can do? Twelve years after it started, there is no competitive market for digitized books, which may have given far superior offerings to the public. The public opted for "crap but free at the point of delivery," and handed Google a monopoly that it's unlikely to want to improve.

[theregister.co.uk...]

From a copyright production point of view this is very disturbing, and I say this as a creator of content and author of books (nothing famous, just books).

That's what libraries are for.

I'll never suggest that I'm brilliant. However I'm really astonished at the lack of understanding of how things work. I could sit and list it all out, but I won't bother. If people can't figure this out, so be it. If people in 2016 can't foresee convenience trumping right and wrong or laziness?

Here, let me rip this article from a magazine because this is what I need. In fact I won't cut it out of the magazine on the store shelf. I will instead take a photo and share it to the entire globe, instantly so that when they need that information, I have it for them. It's much easier and better for everyone. You can still buy the magazine, although I just gave you the part that you needed at that moment. If you need a different portion at a later time, just visit my website and I will provide you with that snippet. Oh, you can buy the magazine if you prefer. You can enjoy the other 100 frivolous pages and ads, or instead you can get what you want from me. All fair, all above board?

No way do I believe this is a means to get authors more money or to sell more books. They don't want the book, but just the guts of it. They don't really need your site so much, just the part that answers the question of the inquiry. The book and the website are more and more becoming the hassle. I don't see innocence at play at all, but that's just me. I think it's called sticky fingers syndrome.