Tom Krazit via CNet News; An author's guide to the Google Books flap:
"The issues surrounding Google's Book Search settlement are among the most complex surrounding the company this year: what do authors need to know about their rights and responsibilities?
Google has scanned over 10 million books since 2004 in participation with libraries and publishers in hopes of creating a unique digital library and storefront, and if its pending settlement with books rights holders is approved next month at a hearing, Google will be able to make a far greater portion of those works available through its search engine. Friday is the deadline for authors to decide if they want to participate in the settlement.
The settlement has drawn attention and criticism from groups such as library ethicists and academics for the way it concentrates control of this potentially wondrous public good in the hands of a for-profit company. The Department of Justice is also taking a look at the settlement, which has the potential to throw a large roadblock ahead of the project.
Authors, however, have a few choices to make as they ponder Friday's deadline. Here's a sampling of what they need to know:..."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10322574-265.html
Showing posts with label Department of Justice antitrust inquiry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Justice antitrust inquiry. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Google's One Million Books; Forbes, 8/28/09
Steve Pociask via Forbes; Google's One Million Books:
There is still major concern over Google's settlement with author and publisher groups.
"Imagine that your home and the homes of millions of your neighbors are burglarized. Now, say you catch the perpetrator and the case goes to trial. What would you expect--the return of all of your valuable possessions, stringent penalties for damages and jail time for the perpetrator? But instead, the judge agrees to a settlement that lets the perpetrator avoid any penalties, jail time or probation; he lets the perpetrator use the stolen contents for as long as he wants, provided he pays each victim a one-time fee per item; and, for those victims not knowing that their contents were stolen, the perpetrator can keep and use it, without any compensation or penalty at all. Would such a settlement seem fair?
While just an illustration, there are similarities to what is happening now in a court case involving online scanning and use of millions of books, which is in direct violation of copyright protections given to authors and, in this case, the Department of Justice has taken notice, as have a number of state attorneys general and the European Union's competition commission.
In the coming days, authors must decide whether to opt out of the settlement, and in the coming weeks Judge Denny Chin is likely to decide on a settlement involving copyright infringement claims against Google."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/google-book-copyright-opinions-contributors-steve-pociask.html
There is still major concern over Google's settlement with author and publisher groups.
"Imagine that your home and the homes of millions of your neighbors are burglarized. Now, say you catch the perpetrator and the case goes to trial. What would you expect--the return of all of your valuable possessions, stringent penalties for damages and jail time for the perpetrator? But instead, the judge agrees to a settlement that lets the perpetrator avoid any penalties, jail time or probation; he lets the perpetrator use the stolen contents for as long as he wants, provided he pays each victim a one-time fee per item; and, for those victims not knowing that their contents were stolen, the perpetrator can keep and use it, without any compensation or penalty at all. Would such a settlement seem fair?
While just an illustration, there are similarities to what is happening now in a court case involving online scanning and use of millions of books, which is in direct violation of copyright protections given to authors and, in this case, the Department of Justice has taken notice, as have a number of state attorneys general and the European Union's competition commission.
In the coming days, authors must decide whether to opt out of the settlement, and in the coming weeks Judge Denny Chin is likely to decide on a settlement involving copyright infringement claims against Google."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/google-book-copyright-opinions-contributors-steve-pociask.html
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Open Books Alliance calls for investigation into Google Books Settlement; Information World Review, 8/25/09
Information World Review; Open Books Alliance calls for investigation into Google Books Settlement:
"The Open Books Alliance seeks resolution on issues of copyright, access, anti-trust and privacy.
SLA chief executive Janice Lachance said: “A completely electronic, searchable, and universally accessible repository of digital books has the potential to bring untold value and knowledge to individuals, organisations and libraries, making more information available to more people around the globe. We look forward to that day. “In the meantime, we are joining this effort because we believe that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) must look into the full ramifications of this settlement on issues of copyright, access, affordability and privacy.”
SLA aims at ensuring that any mass book digitisation and distribution system addresses those extremely important issues, and that access to such valuable information remains open and competitive.
“As with any important legal decision that may threaten the accessibility of information to the public, SLA believes it should be grounded in sound public policy, be mindful of the long-term benefits for the greater good, as well as take into consideration input from the public and important stakeholders,” Lachance added.
In the coming weeks, the alliance will release information about its intent, the members, and its actions, including specific details as to its intended course of action with the DOJ."
http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2248405/open-books-alliance-calls
"The Open Books Alliance seeks resolution on issues of copyright, access, anti-trust and privacy.
SLA chief executive Janice Lachance said: “A completely electronic, searchable, and universally accessible repository of digital books has the potential to bring untold value and knowledge to individuals, organisations and libraries, making more information available to more people around the globe. We look forward to that day. “In the meantime, we are joining this effort because we believe that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) must look into the full ramifications of this settlement on issues of copyright, access, affordability and privacy.”
SLA aims at ensuring that any mass book digitisation and distribution system addresses those extremely important issues, and that access to such valuable information remains open and competitive.
“As with any important legal decision that may threaten the accessibility of information to the public, SLA believes it should be grounded in sound public policy, be mindful of the long-term benefits for the greater good, as well as take into consideration input from the public and important stakeholders,” Lachance added.
In the coming weeks, the alliance will release information about its intent, the members, and its actions, including specific details as to its intended course of action with the DOJ."
http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2248405/open-books-alliance-calls
Friday, August 21, 2009
Why is the Antitrust Division Investigating the Google Book Search Settlement?; Huffington Post, 8/19/09
Pamela Samuelson via Huffington Post; Why is the Antitrust Division Investigating the Google Book Search Settlement?:
"As I explained last Monday, the settlement is audacious because it uses the legal jujitsu of the class action procedure to give Google a breathtaking license to all in-copyright books. The agreement authorizes Google to create a digital library of these books and to commercialize most of them. Google will compensate rights holders for commercialization of these books either directly if they signed up with the Google partner program or indirectly through a newly created Book Rights Registry (BRR) whose job is to distribute money to rights holders signed up with BRR.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced in late April 2009 that it was investigating whether the settlement agreement is, as some critics charge, an agreement that will unreasonably restrain trade or create a monopoly that would enable Google to extract monopoly rents from the books and further entrench Google's dominance in the search market.
Antitrust analysis generally starts with a definition of the affected market. The market for digital books is currently rather small, but it is growing. Many predict that it will become a major market in the future. Clearly, Amazon and Barnes & Noble, as well as Google, can negotiate with rights holders of in-print books to make these books available in digital form (although the settlement would give Google the right to scan the books first and negotiate later). Google argues that Amazon and other digital booksellers can also license rights to sell digital books from the BRR. And of course, anyone can sell or give away public domain books...
My concerns about the competition-policy consequences of the settlement center on the market for institutional subscriptions. The settlement gives Google the right to have and make available the contents of a universal library of books. Anyone else could build a digital library with public domain books and whatever other books it could license from publishers or BRR. But no one else can offer a comparably comprehensive institutional subscription service because only Google has a license to all out-of-print books. Google's optimistic estimate is that only 10 percent of the books in the corpus will really be "orphans," but 10 percent is still roughly two million books. Suppose the real percentage of orphans is closer to 30 percent and another 20 percent of those whom BRR tries to sign up tell the BRR reps to get lost...
Under the Bush Administration, the DOJ would likely have done nothing about the GBS settlement. But the Obama Administration takes antitrust seriously. We will know very soon what DOJ plans to do, for the judge presiding over the settlement agreement has asked DOJ to report on its antitrust analysis by September 18."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/why-is-the-antitrust-divi_b_258997.html
"As I explained last Monday, the settlement is audacious because it uses the legal jujitsu of the class action procedure to give Google a breathtaking license to all in-copyright books. The agreement authorizes Google to create a digital library of these books and to commercialize most of them. Google will compensate rights holders for commercialization of these books either directly if they signed up with the Google partner program or indirectly through a newly created Book Rights Registry (BRR) whose job is to distribute money to rights holders signed up with BRR.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced in late April 2009 that it was investigating whether the settlement agreement is, as some critics charge, an agreement that will unreasonably restrain trade or create a monopoly that would enable Google to extract monopoly rents from the books and further entrench Google's dominance in the search market.
Antitrust analysis generally starts with a definition of the affected market. The market for digital books is currently rather small, but it is growing. Many predict that it will become a major market in the future. Clearly, Amazon and Barnes & Noble, as well as Google, can negotiate with rights holders of in-print books to make these books available in digital form (although the settlement would give Google the right to scan the books first and negotiate later). Google argues that Amazon and other digital booksellers can also license rights to sell digital books from the BRR. And of course, anyone can sell or give away public domain books...
My concerns about the competition-policy consequences of the settlement center on the market for institutional subscriptions. The settlement gives Google the right to have and make available the contents of a universal library of books. Anyone else could build a digital library with public domain books and whatever other books it could license from publishers or BRR. But no one else can offer a comparably comprehensive institutional subscription service because only Google has a license to all out-of-print books. Google's optimistic estimate is that only 10 percent of the books in the corpus will really be "orphans," but 10 percent is still roughly two million books. Suppose the real percentage of orphans is closer to 30 percent and another 20 percent of those whom BRR tries to sign up tell the BRR reps to get lost...
Under the Bush Administration, the DOJ would likely have done nothing about the GBS settlement. But the Obama Administration takes antitrust seriously. We will know very soon what DOJ plans to do, for the judge presiding over the settlement agreement has asked DOJ to report on its antitrust analysis by September 18."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/why-is-the-antitrust-divi_b_258997.html
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
More Pushback Against the Google Book Search Settlement; Library Journal, 8/11/09
Norman Oder via Library Journal; More Pushback Against the Google Book Search Settlement:
"The Google Book Search Settlement, heading for a court hearing in October but also the subject of a Department of Justice antitrust inquiry, is beginning to generate more skepticism from arbiters of the public interest...
Questions of fairness
Samuelson questions whether the AAP and AG were fair representatives of the larger classes, and whether the Book Rights Registry can represent “the thousands of times larger and more diverse class of authors and publishers of books from all over the world.”
She noted, for example, that many academic authors “would much rather make their works available on an open access basis than to sign up with the Registry.”
Her subsequent column will explore why the Antitrust Division is investigating. In response, Law professor Mike Madison predicted, “The Justice Department will, in the end, facilitate a deal that gives other book scanning projects a release regarding orphan works that is comparable to what Google is getting via the settlement.”
Should authors opt out?
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that agency William Morris Endeavor has advised authors it represents to opt out of the settlement because it would “bind copyright owners in any book published prior to January 9, 2009 to its terms.”
The Authors Guild responded that William Morris was off-base."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6675916.html
"The Google Book Search Settlement, heading for a court hearing in October but also the subject of a Department of Justice antitrust inquiry, is beginning to generate more skepticism from arbiters of the public interest...
Questions of fairness
Samuelson questions whether the AAP and AG were fair representatives of the larger classes, and whether the Book Rights Registry can represent “the thousands of times larger and more diverse class of authors and publishers of books from all over the world.”
She noted, for example, that many academic authors “would much rather make their works available on an open access basis than to sign up with the Registry.”
Her subsequent column will explore why the Antitrust Division is investigating. In response, Law professor Mike Madison predicted, “The Justice Department will, in the end, facilitate a deal that gives other book scanning projects a release regarding orphan works that is comparable to what Google is getting via the settlement.”
Should authors opt out?
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that agency William Morris Endeavor has advised authors it represents to opt out of the settlement because it would “bind copyright owners in any book published prior to January 9, 2009 to its terms.”
The Authors Guild responded that William Morris was off-base."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6675916.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)