Why did the judge consider Google’s Book search project to be transformative? What are some of the possible benefits and possible issues with such a project? What are some differences between Fair Use (US copyright law) and Fair Dealing (Australian copyright law)?

As so often appears to be the case with new developments in technology, Google Books is simultaneously democratising and ultra-capitalistic. Google’s aim of bringing literature and research to the masses is a wonderful equiliser which increases access to quality resources, but isn’t purely altruistic or without benefit to the corporate giant behind the move since they stand to profit from advertising and potential future subscription models. I’m no lawyer, but it seems that Google is prevailing on a technicality – namely, that according to US laws a class action must be brought by a ‘class’ or group with similar facts (in this case, I think this refers to similar losses). If I’m understanding this case correctly, the ‘injuries’ or financial losses by the authors involved in the class action are potentially not similar enough for them to be counted as a class, which means that each individual author would have to sue Google separately – and who has the time, money, and resources to go up in a David vs. Googliath battle like this? Google Books is also an internationally accessed resource affecting international authors, though it seems like this case is being decided in US courts under US laws. Since Australia’s Fair Dealing provisions seem more prescriptive than the USA’s Fair Use laws, I wonder what the implications will be for local publishers. I’m also concerned about the possibility that in future, Google can restrict access to these materials again in the name of profit or lock users in to access via certain devices (which, of course, will also financially benefit Google!).