Showing posts with label AAP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AAP. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Sci-Hub Controversy Triggers Publishers’ Critique of Librarian; Library Journal, 8/25/16

Lisa Peet, Library Journal; Sci-Hub Controversy Triggers Publishers’ Critique of Librarian:
"“I was surprised that AAP would take the tactic of trying to say ‘don’t talk about Sci-Hub,’ as if ignoring the problem, or not shining light on it, would make it go away,” Joseph told LJ. “That seems kind of a backwards way to approach this issue to me, because what we’re seeing, frankly, is Sci-Hub really growing in popularity.”
Sci-Hub’s various clashes with the world of scholarly publishing, Joseph noted, is helping to raise awareness of the issues surrounding journal access outside the library walls. “It’s not just a library problem…. When researchers are going to the lengths of using an illegal resource to get access, I think it’s really showing institutions that it’s not a departmental problem. It’s an institutional problem.”
And the problem doesn’t only lie within academia, Gardner added. As a member of ALA, he said, it would be unethical for him to promote Sci-Hub’s use given the constraints of the legal system. “But I do think that copyright is far too strong, and that the system is in need of reform. The reason why services like Sci-Hub exist is because we have a copyright system which is too draconian.”
“This is an area where tempers run high, and I think that reasonable people can disagree,” he said. “There are a lot of people, scholars and librarians, who think that using Sci-Hub is civil disobedience and I’m personally very sympathetic to that argument. But it’s also obvious to me that under the current legal system, this is totally illegal.”
Gardner is working on research that he will present at ACRL’s 2017 conference, again using data from the Science survey to examine Sci-Hub’s potential impact on inter-library loan practices."

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

How Google Stole the Work of Millions of Authors; Wall Street Journal, 2/7/16

Roxana Robinson, Wall Street Journal; How Google Stole the Work of Millions of Authors:
"Last week publishers, copyright experts and other supporters filed amicus briefs petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the copyright-infringement case against Google brought by the Authors Guild."

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Google Presses Fair Use Case in Book Scanning Appeal; Library Journal, 11/12/12

Gary Price, Library Journal; Google Presses Fair Use Case in Book Scanning Appeal: "On November 9, Google asked a federal appeals court to reverse the May ruling that the Authors Guild’s long running case against Google Books could go forward as a class action. In August, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided to allow Google to appeal for decertifying the case as a class action...Since the last time Google sought dismissal of the Guild case, in July, Google’s side has been strengthened by the ruling in the Guild’s case against the HathiTrust, for allowing Google to digitize their holdings and putting them to several uses."

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Google Books hasn't cost authors a dime, company says; ArsTechnica.com, 7/27/12

Cyrus Farivar, ArsTechnica.com; Google Books hasn't cost authors a dime, company says:

"On Friday, Google filed for summary judgment in the Google Books case against the Authors' Guild, renewing its argument that the entire project constitutes fair use. That company argues therefore that it does not need permission from authors in order to scan substantial portions of their work...

More substantially, Google argues that Google Books is a transformative work, and that the company "copied no more of the books than was necessary to create a searchable index, and displays no more of the works than is necessary to allow readers to determine whether the book might be of interest to them."

Monday, May 21, 2012

Georgia State Copyright Case: What You Need To Know—and What It Means for E-Reserves; LibraryJournal.com, 5/17/12

Meredith Schwartz, LibraryJournal.com; Georgia State Copyright Case: What You Need To Know—and What It Means for E-Reserves:

"One of the most closely watched e-reserve cases in recent memory came to an end—though an appeal is still possible—on May 11, when Judge Orinda Evans of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Cambridge University Press (CUP); Oxford University Press (OUP); Sage Publications v. Georgia State University (GSU). The case alleged copyright infringement in GSU’s e-reserves, and in essence the judge came down on the side of libraries in a 350-page decision delivered almost a year after she heard closing arguments.


Of the 75 cases of alleged infringement she considered, Judge Evans held five to be infringement. The rest were either held to be fair use, or the question did not arise, because the copying was held to be de minimis—when virtually no one actually read the posted work—or because the publishers did not demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that they had standing to make the claim."

Friday, September 16, 2011

Judge Sets Schedule in Case Over Google’s Digital Library; New York Times, 9/15/11

Julie Bosman, New York times; Judge Sets Schedule in Case Over Google’s Digital Library:

"Google’s plan to build a huge digital library remained stalled on Thursday when a federal judge set a proposed schedule for a lawsuit against the giant search company that could take the case to trial next year."

Monday, July 25, 2011

Judge Urges Settlement In Google Books Case; Wall Street Journal, 7/20/11

Chad Bray, Wall Street Journal; Judge Urges Settlement In Google Books Case:

"A federal judge urged Google Inc. and groups representing publishers and authors to reach a revised settlement over a proposed digital library of books before the next court hearing in September, saying he would set a schedule for the case to proceed to trial if the parties aren't close to a settlement by then."

Thursday, June 2, 2011

No Progress on Google Book Settlement Talks;Tone Changing? ; Publishers Weekly, 6/1/11

Albanese, A., Publishers Weekly; No Progress on Google Book Settlement Talks; Tone Changing? :

"The parties have made no progress on the underlying copyright dispute behind the lawsuits: whether Google’s scanning and limited display of library books is fair use, or infringement."

Monday, November 9, 2009

Google, Plaintiffs Blow Book Search Settlement Deadline; PC World, 11/09/09

Juan Carlos Perez, PC World; Google, Plaintiffs Blow Book Search Settlement Deadline:

"Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) need more time to revise the proposed settlement of the copyright infringement lawsuits the author and publisher organizations brought against Google over its Book Search program.

Google and the plaintiffs were supposed to file the revised agreement with the court on Monday, but instead they have asked the judge to give them until the end of the week.

"The parties have sent a letter to the court asking for an extension of time until this Friday, November 13 for the filing of the amended settlement agreement," said Judy Platt, an AAP spokeswoman, via e-mail.

At press time, Judge Denny Chin from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York hadn't decided whether to grant the extension requested today."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/181752/google_plaintiffs_blow_book_search_settlement_deadline.html

Sunday, August 16, 2009

The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement; Huffington Post, 8/10/09

Pamela Samuelson via Huffington Post; The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement:

"Sorry, Kindle. The Google Book Search settlement will be, if approved, the most significant book industry development in the modern era. Exploiting an opportunity made possible by lawsuits brought by a small number of plaintiffs on one narrow issue, Google has negotiated a settlement agreement designed to give it a compulsory license to all books in copyright throughout the world forever. This settlement will transform the future of the book industry and of public access to the cultural heritage of mankind embodied in books. How audacious is that? "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/the-audacity-of-the-googl_b_255490.html

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Copyright Research Bill ReIntroduced, LIS News, 2/4/09

Via LIS News: Copyright Research Bill ReIntroduced:

"The Fair Copyright in Research Works bill, a controversial measure that would ban public access policies similar to those of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was reintroduced in Congress last night, after being shelved at the end of 2008.

The bill resurfaces as proponents in the Association of American Publishers’ (AAP) Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division holds its annual conference today in Washington, DC. Although the text of HR 801 has yet to be posted online, those who have seen it say it has much the same text as HR 6845, which was the subject of a spirited hearing held before a Congressional subcommittee last year.

In a statement, AAP officials praised the bill's reintroduction, and said the legislation "would help keep the Federal Government from undermining copyright protection for journal articles." The library community, however, strongly opposses the measure."

http://lisnews.org/node/32669/

Thursday, December 18, 2008

OpEd: Editorial: Google Deal or Rip-Off?, Via Library Journal, 12/15/08

OpEd: Via Library Journal: Editorial: Google Deal or Rip-Off?:

"One public access terminal per public library building. Institutional database subscriptions for academic and public libraries that secure once freely available material in a contractual lockbox, which librarians already know too well from costly e-journal and e-reference database deals. No remote access for public libraries without approval from the publisher/author Book Rights Registry, set up to administer the program. And no copying or pasting from that institutional database, though you can print pages for a fee. Of course, you can always purchase the book, too.

Those are just a few of the choice tidbits from the 200-page settlement in the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and Authors Guild three-year-old suit against Google, drawn from Jonathan Band's “Guide for the Perplexed: Libraries and the Google Library Project Settlement.” Band's report was commissioned by the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries...

The restrictions were obviously too much for one of the original five Google partners, Harvard University Library (HUL), which criticized the settlement. Robert Darnton, the HUL director, said the deal had “too many potential limitations on access to and use of books” for academia and public libraries and questioned what the price for access would be, given that “the subscription service will have no real competitors.”"

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6618842.html