Chris O'Brien via San Jose Mercury News; Scrap Google book settlement and start fresh:
"At first blush, Google's plan to digitize millions of books seemed like a grand idea, opening up the world's libraries to readers everywhere.
Unfortunately, Google's effort has been clumsy from the start. The Mountain View company bulldozed into the effort in 2005 without building consensus around its plans, and then acted surprised when its motives were questioned.
The result was years of litigation and a proposed settlement that has only antagonized critics.
By Friday, authors need to decide whether they want to accept that settlement or opt out and reserve their right to sue Google.
But before then, I think Google should scrap the whole thing and go back to square one.
The proposed settlement has the potential for creating the framework for how books are digitized for the next century. The stakes for readers, authors and libraries are high.
Unfortunately, many on the outside of this process looking in feel like Google's been throwing its weight around on this issue. Google didn't exactly help matters in this regard when a spokesman was quoted on a Wall Street Journal blog calling one opposition group the "Sour Grapes Alliance." Gee, I wonder why some folks think Google can be arrogant?
It's a shame that it's come to this, because of the amazing potential behind this idea...
No doubt the idea of starting again will elicit groans from the Googleplex. Four years of litigation probably feels like an eternity for a 10-year-old company that's used to moving at Internet speed.
But it's the kind of goodwill gesture that would go a long way toward diffusing the mounting frustration among critics and begin laying the groundwork toward an equitable solution. If Google's motives are true, and I believe they are, then patience is the best course.
It's far more important to get it right than to get it done."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13248382
Showing posts with label appropriateness of class action rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label appropriateness of class action rules. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Lawyer and Author Adds His Objections to Settling the Google Book Lawsuit; New York Times, 8/19/09
Miguel Helft and Motoko Rich via New York Times; Lawyer and Author Adds His Objections to Settling the Google Book Lawsuit:
"In the latest objection, Scott E. Gant, an author and partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, a prominent Washington law firm, plans to file a sweeping opposition to the settlement on Wednesday urging the court to reject it.
“This is a predominantly commercial transaction and one that should be undertaken through the normal commercial process, which is negotiation and informed consent,” Mr. Gant said in an interview. Google and its partners are “trying to ram this through so that millions of copyright holders will have no idea that this is happening.”
Unlike most previous objections to the project, which focused on policy issues and recommended modifications to the settlement, Mr. Gant argues that the agreement, which gives Google commercial rights to millions of books without having to negotiate for them individually, amounts to an abuse of the class-action process. He also contends that it does not sufficiently compensate authors and does not adequately notify and represent all the authors affected.
Legal experts, who had not seen the filing but heard a description of it, said it could be the most direct attack on the agreement so far.
“It may be the most fundamental challenge to the settlement yet,” said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, a critic of the agreement whose blog tracks filings and commentary related to it...
“I opted out of the settlement just on ornery grounds,” said Christopher Buckley, author of “Thank You for Smoking” and “Losing Mum and Pup,” a memoir. He said he was suspicious of the claims by Google and the Authors Guild that the settlement would help breathe new life into out-of-print works. “I think books either stay in print or don’t pretty much on their own,” he said.
He said he was skeptical that the agreement was increasing the public good. “Whenever I hear capitalism proclaiming noble motives,” he said, “something makes me check my wallet.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/technology/internet/19google.html
"In the latest objection, Scott E. Gant, an author and partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, a prominent Washington law firm, plans to file a sweeping opposition to the settlement on Wednesday urging the court to reject it.
“This is a predominantly commercial transaction and one that should be undertaken through the normal commercial process, which is negotiation and informed consent,” Mr. Gant said in an interview. Google and its partners are “trying to ram this through so that millions of copyright holders will have no idea that this is happening.”
Unlike most previous objections to the project, which focused on policy issues and recommended modifications to the settlement, Mr. Gant argues that the agreement, which gives Google commercial rights to millions of books without having to negotiate for them individually, amounts to an abuse of the class-action process. He also contends that it does not sufficiently compensate authors and does not adequately notify and represent all the authors affected.
Legal experts, who had not seen the filing but heard a description of it, said it could be the most direct attack on the agreement so far.
“It may be the most fundamental challenge to the settlement yet,” said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, a critic of the agreement whose blog tracks filings and commentary related to it...
“I opted out of the settlement just on ornery grounds,” said Christopher Buckley, author of “Thank You for Smoking” and “Losing Mum and Pup,” a memoir. He said he was suspicious of the claims by Google and the Authors Guild that the settlement would help breathe new life into out-of-print works. “I think books either stay in print or don’t pretty much on their own,” he said.
He said he was skeptical that the agreement was increasing the public good. “Whenever I hear capitalism proclaiming noble motives,” he said, “something makes me check my wallet.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/technology/internet/19google.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)