Pamela Samuelson, Chronicle of Higher Education; Reforming Copyright Is Possible:
"The failure of the Google Book settlement, however, has not killed the dream of a comprehensive digital library accessible to the public. Indeed, it has inspired an alternative that would avoid the risks of monopoly control. A coalition of nonprofit libraries, archives, and universities has formed to create a Digital Public Library of America, which is scheduled to launch its services in April 2013. The San Francisco Public Library recently sponsored a second major planning session for the DPLA, which drew 400 participants. Major foundations, as well as private donors, are providing financial support. The DPLA aims to be a portal through which the public can access vast stores of knowledge online. Free, forever."
Showing posts with label Google Book Search settlement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google Book Search settlement. Show all posts
Monday, July 16, 2012
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Google's bookstore may launch in time for the holidays; ArsTechnica.com, 12/1/10
John Timmer, ArsTechnica.com; Google's bookstore may launch in time for the holidays:
"Google's settlement with book copyright owners may still be meandering through the courts, but that's apparently not going to stop the search giant from launching an online bookstore. The company's book settlement, which would give Google the right to offer out-of-print books for sale, is still awaiting approval or modification by a New York court...
For now, however, the books on offer will simply mirror what's available from other retailers, which primarily means books currently in print and a back catalog of works old enough to be out of copyright."
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/12/googles-book-store-may-launch-in-time-for-the-holidays.ars
"Google's settlement with book copyright owners may still be meandering through the courts, but that's apparently not going to stop the search giant from launching an online bookstore. The company's book settlement, which would give Google the right to offer out-of-print books for sale, is still awaiting approval or modification by a New York court...
For now, however, the books on offer will simply mirror what's available from other retailers, which primarily means books currently in print and a back catalog of works old enough to be out of copyright."
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/12/googles-book-store-may-launch-in-time-for-the-holidays.ars
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
French authors' body warns over Google-Hachette deal; (London) Guardian, 11/22/10
Benedicte Page, (London) Guardian; French authors' body warns over Google-Hachette deal: La Sociéte des Gens de Lettres de France advises writers to scrutinise contracts carefully in the wake of groundbreaking digitisation agreement:
"Last week's deal between Google and the publisher Hachette Livre should put authors on high alert, according to the French authors' body, La Société des Gens de Lettres de France (SGDLF). They have called today for authors to scrutinise contracts with "the highest degree of vigilance" in the light of the search engine's agreement over scanning works that are out of print."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/nov/22/google-hachette-copyright
"Last week's deal between Google and the publisher Hachette Livre should put authors on high alert, according to the French authors' body, La Société des Gens de Lettres de France (SGDLF). They have called today for authors to scrutinise contracts with "the highest degree of vigilance" in the light of the search engine's agreement over scanning works that are out of print."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/nov/22/google-hachette-copyright
French publishing giants cave in to Google's great copyright heist; (London) Guardian, 11/22/10
Robert McCrrum, (London) Guardian; French publishing giants cave in to Google's great copyright heist: With Hachette opening up its archives to Google, calls for a public digitisation project are getting more urgent than ever:
"Robert Darnton's response, in the same issue, is intriguing. No one, I think, has looked harder at this issue, or addressed it with such a fine sense of historical precedent and nuance. Basically, what Darnton now advocates is the incremental construction of a US digital library in which each separate copyright category (and there are several) would be accommodated by special agreements between interested parties. In stark contrast to the senior executives of Google who contrive to seem both arrogant and secretive, Darnton now says that "the Digital Public Library of America", a model for libraries the world over, should emerge from "a broad debate on a national scale" and that "the people themselves should have a voice in its design"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/nov/22/hachette-google-digital-public-library
"Robert Darnton's response, in the same issue, is intriguing. No one, I think, has looked harder at this issue, or addressed it with such a fine sense of historical precedent and nuance. Basically, what Darnton now advocates is the incremental construction of a US digital library in which each separate copyright category (and there are several) would be accommodated by special agreements between interested parties. In stark contrast to the senior executives of Google who contrive to seem both arrogant and secretive, Darnton now says that "the Digital Public Library of America", a model for libraries the world over, should emerge from "a broad debate on a national scale" and that "the people themselves should have a voice in its design"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/nov/22/hachette-google-digital-public-library
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Ebook Summit Webcast Tackles Google Books Project; Library Journal, 9/27/10
Raya Kuzyk, Library Journal; Ebook Summit Webcast Tackles Google Books Project: Two librarians, a Google rep, and a PW editor walk into an ebook summit...and share their varying takes on the pending Google Books settlement:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/887025-264/ebook_summit_webcast_tackles_google.html.csp
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/887025-264/ebook_summit_webcast_tackles_google.html.csp
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Un-Google That; ABA Journal, 9/1/10
Brendan L. Smith, ABA Journal; Un-Google That: Google's new pact may have crisscrossed copyright law:
"At the fairness hearing for the Google Books settlement, an overflow crowd filled U.S. District Judge Denny Chin's Manhattan courtroom and spilled into a separate room where spectators watched a video feed.
"Voluminous materials have been submitted, and we are working our way through them," Chin said at the Feb. 18 hearing. "There is a lot of repetition. Some of the submissions even quote some of the other submissions. I'm reading them twice."
The agreement weighs in at 179 pages with 16 attachments, and it has been opposed on several fronts, with the Justice Department raising antitrust concerns alongside authors' claims of copyright infringement."
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/un-google_that/78714/
"At the fairness hearing for the Google Books settlement, an overflow crowd filled U.S. District Judge Denny Chin's Manhattan courtroom and spilled into a separate room where spectators watched a video feed.
"Voluminous materials have been submitted, and we are working our way through them," Chin said at the Feb. 18 hearing. "There is a lot of repetition. Some of the submissions even quote some of the other submissions. I'm reading them twice."
The agreement weighs in at 179 pages with 16 attachments, and it has been opposed on several fronts, with the Justice Department raising antitrust concerns alongside authors' claims of copyright infringement."
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/un-google_that/78714/
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Open Book Alliance tosses brick at Google; backs Amazon, Microsoft Corp., AT&T; Baltimore Examiner, 5/11/10
Peter Kelton, Baltimore Examiner; Open Book Alliance tosses brick at Google; backs Amazon, Microsoft Corp., AT&T:
"The Open Book Alliance (OBA) has tossed another brick at the Google Books Settlement now pending a supposedly final decision in federal court. Many believe the decision may shape the future of book publishing. Most assume the decision will be appealed.
OBA released an analysis it bought from a law firm that finds “numerous provisions of the proposed Google Books settlement would, if approved, violate the treaty obligations of the U.S. If the settlement is approved, it may give rise to legal action against the U.S. before an international tribunal and will certainly expose the U.S. to diplomatic stress.”
Open Book Alliance includes the following members: Amazon, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Council of Literary Magazines and Presses, Internet Archive, Presidio of San Francisco, Microsoft, National Writers Union, New York Library Association, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Small Press Distribution, and Yahoo!
The 18-page analysis is available from (OBA).
The Justice Department had recommended that folks keep negotiating the ultimate terms of settling the $125 million lawsuit against Google."
http://www.examiner.com/x-15737-Albuquerque-Contemporary-Literature-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Open-Book-Alliance-tosses-brick-at-Google-backs-Amazon-Microsoft-Corp-ATT
"The Open Book Alliance (OBA) has tossed another brick at the Google Books Settlement now pending a supposedly final decision in federal court. Many believe the decision may shape the future of book publishing. Most assume the decision will be appealed.
OBA released an analysis it bought from a law firm that finds “numerous provisions of the proposed Google Books settlement would, if approved, violate the treaty obligations of the U.S. If the settlement is approved, it may give rise to legal action against the U.S. before an international tribunal and will certainly expose the U.S. to diplomatic stress.”
Open Book Alliance includes the following members: Amazon, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Council of Literary Magazines and Presses, Internet Archive, Presidio of San Francisco, Microsoft, National Writers Union, New York Library Association, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Small Press Distribution, and Yahoo!
The 18-page analysis is available from (OBA).
The Justice Department had recommended that folks keep negotiating the ultimate terms of settling the $125 million lawsuit against Google."
http://www.examiner.com/x-15737-Albuquerque-Contemporary-Literature-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Open-Book-Alliance-tosses-brick-at-Google-backs-Amazon-Microsoft-Corp-ATT
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Google's digital library faces key hurdles; San Jose Mercury News, 3/7/10
Mike Swift, San Jose Mercury News; Google's digital library faces key hurdles:
"Sometime in the near future, a federal judge will decide whether Google can proceed with its plan to create a digital library and bookstore out of millions of old books scanned from libraries around the world.
Google Book Search has already spawned a class-action lawsuit, and now, a surge of opposition from scholars, consumer advocates and business competitors who claim the plan gives Google too much control over a priceless store of information. The legal issues are complex. But the impact and implications of the plan, which would create a copyright framework for old books that would persist into the 22nd century, could be huge, some say.
"It really is the most important copyright dispute we're currently facing," said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School and a former Microsoft programmer. "I would say this whole controversy has the potential to really affect how we access all kinds of media, not just old ones, but also new ones."
If Google is successful in rewriting a major area of copyright law through its proposed settlement of the lawsuit, someone else could try something similar for music or photographs. "It's a really interesting way to break a lot of logjams in copyright law," Grimmelmann said. "But are we opening a Pandora's box?""
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14521165
"Sometime in the near future, a federal judge will decide whether Google can proceed with its plan to create a digital library and bookstore out of millions of old books scanned from libraries around the world.
Google Book Search has already spawned a class-action lawsuit, and now, a surge of opposition from scholars, consumer advocates and business competitors who claim the plan gives Google too much control over a priceless store of information. The legal issues are complex. But the impact and implications of the plan, which would create a copyright framework for old books that would persist into the 22nd century, could be huge, some say.
"It really is the most important copyright dispute we're currently facing," said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School and a former Microsoft programmer. "I would say this whole controversy has the potential to really affect how we access all kinds of media, not just old ones, but also new ones."
If Google is successful in rewriting a major area of copyright law through its proposed settlement of the lawsuit, someone else could try something similar for music or photographs. "It's a really interesting way to break a lot of logjams in copyright law," Grimmelmann said. "But are we opening a Pandora's box?""
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14521165
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Google Book Search Case: March Madness Edition; Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/5/10
Jennifer Howard, Chronicle of Higher Education; The Google Book Search Case: March Madness Edition:
"The February 18 fairness hearing on the revised settlement in the Google Books lawsuit has come and gone, and the world now waits for word from Denny Chin, the federal judge in charge of the case. It could be a long wait. At the Association of American Publishers meeting held in Washington this week, there was talk that we might not hear from the judge for a couple of months. (He could issue a ruling anytime, of course.)
One question on the minds of everyone following the settlement is : What happens after the judge rules? Jonathan Band, a specialist in technology law and policy, has created a nifty chart of possible paths the settlement might take, depending on what Judge Chin decides. Called "GBS March Madness: Paths Forward for the Google Books Settlement," the chart lays out a many-branched tree of appeals or litigation, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
In a note, Mr. Band points out that even a chart as complex as his does not lay out all the possible twists and turns the case could still take. "For example, it does not mention stays pending appeals nor whether litigation would proceed as a class action," he writes. And it doesn't talk about why Judge Chin might reject or accept the deal, or whether Congress might step in at some juncture.
"In short, the precise way forward is more difficult to predict than the NCAA tournament," Mr. Band observes."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-Google-Book-Search-Case-/21643/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
Friday, February 19, 2010
Judge Hears Arguments on Google Book Settlement; New York Times, 2/19/09
Motoko Rich, New York Times; Judge Hears Arguments on Google Book Settlement:
"The federal judge overseeing the proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed against Google by groups representing authors and publishers heard from a handful of supporters and a parade of objectors to the deal at a hearing Thursday in Manhattan.
At the beginning of more than four hours of testimony in a packed courtroom, Judge Denny Chin of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York said he would not rule immediately on the settlement because there was “just too much to digest.”
Among the supporters of the deal, which would allow Google to create an extensive digital library and bookstore, were the president of the National Federation of the Blind, the librarian of the University of Michigan and a lawyer for Sony Electronics, all of whom said that the agreement would make millions of hard-to-find books available to a vast audience.
Opponents — who cited various concerns relating to competition, privacy, abuse of the class-action process and the violation of copyright — included lawyers for rivals Amazon.com and Microsoft, representatives of various authors and estates, literary agents and speakers representing Pennsylvania and Germany.
William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general with the Justice Department, reiterated points the department made in a filing this month that raised legal objections to the agreement. Mr. Cavanaugh said the Justice Department was continuing its antitrust investigation into the settlement.
While saying that the department “applauds the benefits of mass digitization,” Mr. Cavanaugh said that “our concern is that this is not the appropriate vehicle to achieve these objectives.”
The settlement, originally announced in October 2008, arose out of a copyright infringement suit brought by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google, which had been scanning millions of books from libraries. The complex agreement outlined a plan that would allow Google to make the scanned books available online for searching, as well as create new ways for authors and publishers to earn money from digital editions of works that had long been off the market in print form.
Speaking in support of the settlement, Lateef Mtima, director of the Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice at Howard University, said the settlement would aid in the “development of a thriving, vibrant culture.”
But because the settlement would allow Google to scan and profit from copyright-protected books without the explicit permission of individual authors, the deal generated a litany of complaints. Critics also pointed out that Google would have the right to scan and sell so-called orphan works, those whose authors could not be found or whose rights owners could not be identified.
“You can’t settle a claim for copyright infringement by authorizing the miscreant to continue to infringe copyright,” said Hadrian Katz, a lawyer for the Internet Archive, a nonprofit group that is scanning books for its own digitization project.
Mr. Katz, along with the Justice Department and several other objectors, suggested that Google and its partners amend the settlement to require that authors choose to participate.
Daralyn J. Durie, a lawyer for Google, said the deal was fair because it compensated authors and publishers for any works sold through Google. She said it would be prohibitively expensive to track down millions of authors and negotiate individual deals to display or sell their works digitally.
Michael J. Boni, a lawyer for the Authors Guild, said that a rights registry that would be set up as part of the settlement would make every effort to find authors of orphan works."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/technology/19google.html?scp=2&sq=google%20books&st=cse
"The federal judge overseeing the proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed against Google by groups representing authors and publishers heard from a handful of supporters and a parade of objectors to the deal at a hearing Thursday in Manhattan.
At the beginning of more than four hours of testimony in a packed courtroom, Judge Denny Chin of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York said he would not rule immediately on the settlement because there was “just too much to digest.”
Among the supporters of the deal, which would allow Google to create an extensive digital library and bookstore, were the president of the National Federation of the Blind, the librarian of the University of Michigan and a lawyer for Sony Electronics, all of whom said that the agreement would make millions of hard-to-find books available to a vast audience.
Opponents — who cited various concerns relating to competition, privacy, abuse of the class-action process and the violation of copyright — included lawyers for rivals Amazon.com and Microsoft, representatives of various authors and estates, literary agents and speakers representing Pennsylvania and Germany.
William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general with the Justice Department, reiterated points the department made in a filing this month that raised legal objections to the agreement. Mr. Cavanaugh said the Justice Department was continuing its antitrust investigation into the settlement.
While saying that the department “applauds the benefits of mass digitization,” Mr. Cavanaugh said that “our concern is that this is not the appropriate vehicle to achieve these objectives.”
The settlement, originally announced in October 2008, arose out of a copyright infringement suit brought by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google, which had been scanning millions of books from libraries. The complex agreement outlined a plan that would allow Google to make the scanned books available online for searching, as well as create new ways for authors and publishers to earn money from digital editions of works that had long been off the market in print form.
Speaking in support of the settlement, Lateef Mtima, director of the Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice at Howard University, said the settlement would aid in the “development of a thriving, vibrant culture.”
But because the settlement would allow Google to scan and profit from copyright-protected books without the explicit permission of individual authors, the deal generated a litany of complaints. Critics also pointed out that Google would have the right to scan and sell so-called orphan works, those whose authors could not be found or whose rights owners could not be identified.
“You can’t settle a claim for copyright infringement by authorizing the miscreant to continue to infringe copyright,” said Hadrian Katz, a lawyer for the Internet Archive, a nonprofit group that is scanning books for its own digitization project.
Mr. Katz, along with the Justice Department and several other objectors, suggested that Google and its partners amend the settlement to require that authors choose to participate.
Daralyn J. Durie, a lawyer for Google, said the deal was fair because it compensated authors and publishers for any works sold through Google. She said it would be prohibitively expensive to track down millions of authors and negotiate individual deals to display or sell their works digitally.
Michael J. Boni, a lawyer for the Authors Guild, said that a rights registry that would be set up as part of the settlement would make every effort to find authors of orphan works."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/technology/19google.html?scp=2&sq=google%20books&st=cse
Monday, February 8, 2010
Google: We will bring books back to life; (London) Guardian, 2/5/10
David Drummond, (London) Guardian; Google: We will bring books back to life: We at Google could make that wealth of knowledge available at a click. And authors would earn too:
"If you love books and care about the knowledge they contain, there is a problem that needs to be solved. Somewhere in the region of 175m books exist in the world today. A tiny fraction of those are in print and for sale in bookshops or on the web. Another small portion are so old that they are out of copyright and anyone can use them.
But the remainder of the world's books – indeed the majority – are out of print but in copyright. They are hard for people to find unless they know exactly what they are looking for, and it's very difficult for copyright holders to exploit them commercially. Although copies may be available in libraries, they are effectively dead to the wider world.
Imagine if it were possible to bring those books back to life, to enable people who might be interested in the knowledge they hold to find them, buy them and read them. This is what the Google Book Search Settlement seeks to achieve. It's not just our vision, it's one we share with authors and publishers groups.
Google's founders recognised the problem back when Google was just a start-up in the late 1990s. They proposed a project to digitise all the world's books, but at that time the idea seemed so far-fetched they couldn't persuade anyone in the company to work on it. It took a further five years before Google Books was born. Today, users can access information contained in more than 10m books.
Like many things that have not been tried before, the project has proven to be very controversial. In 2005, Google was sued by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. Since then we have worked closely with those groups to reach a settlement aimed at a shared goal – to unlock the wealth of information held in out-of-print books and to fairly compensate those who hold the rights to the works involved. We believe that the settlement is a good one, not only for authors and publishers but also for readers.
Yet doubts remain, and there is particular concern among authors that they are in danger of handing control of their work to Google. Let me address that concern and dispel some of the myths.
The settlement aims to make access to millions of books available either for a fee or for free, supported by advertisements, with the majority of the revenue flowing back to the rights holders. A new not-for-profit registry will be created to identify the rights holders of lost books and to collect and distribute revenues.
And the rights holders will remain in control. The reality is that they can at any time set pricing and access rights for their works or withdraw them from Google Books altogether.
Some have questioned the impact of the agreement on competition, suggesting it will limit consumer choice and hand Google a monopoly. In reality, nothing in this agreement precludes any other organisation from pursuing its own digitisation efforts. We wish there were a hundred such services. But despite a number of important projects to date – and Google has helped fund some of them – none has been on the same scale simply because no one else has yet chosen to invest the time and resources required. But if there are to be a hundred services in future, we have to start with one.
If we successful, others will follow. And they will have an easier path. The road towards the digitisation of the world's books has so far been anything but smooth and there are, no doubt, further obstacles ahead. In Europe there will need to be new arrangements involving authors and publishers, as the current settlement will benefit only readers in the United States. We believe that it is a journey well worth undertaking.
The truth is that readers around the world who seek the information locked in millions of out-of-print books currently have little choice other than to travel to a small number of libraries in the hope of finding what they are looking for. And if you're an author, you have no way to make money from your work if it's out of print.
Imagine if that information could be made available to everyone, everywhere, at the click of a mouse. Imagine if long-forgotten books could be enjoyed again and could earn new revenues for their authors. Without a settlement it can't happen."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/05/google-bringing-books-back-life
"If you love books and care about the knowledge they contain, there is a problem that needs to be solved. Somewhere in the region of 175m books exist in the world today. A tiny fraction of those are in print and for sale in bookshops or on the web. Another small portion are so old that they are out of copyright and anyone can use them.
But the remainder of the world's books – indeed the majority – are out of print but in copyright. They are hard for people to find unless they know exactly what they are looking for, and it's very difficult for copyright holders to exploit them commercially. Although copies may be available in libraries, they are effectively dead to the wider world.
Imagine if it were possible to bring those books back to life, to enable people who might be interested in the knowledge they hold to find them, buy them and read them. This is what the Google Book Search Settlement seeks to achieve. It's not just our vision, it's one we share with authors and publishers groups.
Google's founders recognised the problem back when Google was just a start-up in the late 1990s. They proposed a project to digitise all the world's books, but at that time the idea seemed so far-fetched they couldn't persuade anyone in the company to work on it. It took a further five years before Google Books was born. Today, users can access information contained in more than 10m books.
Like many things that have not been tried before, the project has proven to be very controversial. In 2005, Google was sued by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. Since then we have worked closely with those groups to reach a settlement aimed at a shared goal – to unlock the wealth of information held in out-of-print books and to fairly compensate those who hold the rights to the works involved. We believe that the settlement is a good one, not only for authors and publishers but also for readers.
Yet doubts remain, and there is particular concern among authors that they are in danger of handing control of their work to Google. Let me address that concern and dispel some of the myths.
The settlement aims to make access to millions of books available either for a fee or for free, supported by advertisements, with the majority of the revenue flowing back to the rights holders. A new not-for-profit registry will be created to identify the rights holders of lost books and to collect and distribute revenues.
And the rights holders will remain in control. The reality is that they can at any time set pricing and access rights for their works or withdraw them from Google Books altogether.
Some have questioned the impact of the agreement on competition, suggesting it will limit consumer choice and hand Google a monopoly. In reality, nothing in this agreement precludes any other organisation from pursuing its own digitisation efforts. We wish there were a hundred such services. But despite a number of important projects to date – and Google has helped fund some of them – none has been on the same scale simply because no one else has yet chosen to invest the time and resources required. But if there are to be a hundred services in future, we have to start with one.
If we successful, others will follow. And they will have an easier path. The road towards the digitisation of the world's books has so far been anything but smooth and there are, no doubt, further obstacles ahead. In Europe there will need to be new arrangements involving authors and publishers, as the current settlement will benefit only readers in the United States. We believe that it is a journey well worth undertaking.
The truth is that readers around the world who seek the information locked in millions of out-of-print books currently have little choice other than to travel to a small number of libraries in the hope of finding what they are looking for. And if you're an author, you have no way to make money from your work if it's out of print.
Imagine if that information could be made available to everyone, everywhere, at the click of a mouse. Imagine if long-forgotten books could be enjoyed again and could earn new revenues for their authors. Without a settlement it can't happen."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/05/google-bringing-books-back-life
Friday, January 1, 2010
Chinese author plans lawsuit over Google Books; CNet News, 12/28/09
Tom Krazit, CNet News; Chinese author plans lawsuit over Google Books:
"A Chinese author plans to sue Google for scanning one of her books into the Google Books database without her permission, according to a report.
Mian Mian intends to file suit this week against Google, claiming copyright infringement after discovering that her third book, "Acid Lovers," was scanned by Google as part of its book digitization project, according to AFP. The suit would be the first filed against Google in China over the Google Books project, which itself is no stranger to the courtroom."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10422290-265.html
"A Chinese author plans to sue Google for scanning one of her books into the Google Books database without her permission, according to a report.
Mian Mian intends to file suit this week against Google, claiming copyright infringement after discovering that her third book, "Acid Lovers," was scanned by Google as part of its book digitization project, according to AFP. The suit would be the first filed against Google in China over the Google Books project, which itself is no stranger to the courtroom."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10422290-265.html
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
EFF Claims Google Book Search, Amazon Kindle Threaten Privacy; eWeek.com, 12/22/09
Chris Boulton, eWeek,com; EFF Claims Google Book Search, Amazon Kindle Threaten Privacy:
Privacy watchdogs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation claim that electronic reader technologies such as Google Book Search, Amazon.com's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook threaten consumer privacy. Noting that e-readers collect a lot of information about their users' reading habits and locations and convey it to the companies that build or sell these technologies, the EFF has created a Buyer's Guide to E-Book Privacy to shed some light on what information existing e-readers collect and share.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Web-Services-Web-20-and-SOA/EFF-Claims-Google-Book-Search-Amazon-Kindle-Threaten-Privacy-661253/
Privacy watchdogs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation claim that electronic reader technologies such as Google Book Search, Amazon.com's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook threaten consumer privacy. Noting that e-readers collect a lot of information about their users' reading habits and locations and convey it to the companies that build or sell these technologies, the EFF has created a Buyer's Guide to E-Book Privacy to shed some light on what information existing e-readers collect and share.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Web-Services-Web-20-and-SOA/EFF-Claims-Google-Book-Search-Amazon-Kindle-Threaten-Privacy-661253/
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The Buzzwords of 2009; New York Times, 12/19/09
Mark Liebovich and Grant Barrett, New York Times; The Buzzwords of 2009:
"Catchphrases and buzzwords can tell us much about a year past — what resonated, what stuck, what the year revealed about the sensibility of the nation, whether you’re a wise Latina woman, a mini-Madoff, a teabagger or Balloon Boy...
orphan books
Volumes still in copyright but out of print and unavailable for sale, and whose copyright holders cannot be found. Rose in 2007 but peaked this year with the fierce discussion over the proposed Google Books settlement."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/weekinreview/20buzz.html?scp=5&sq=copyright&st=cse
"Catchphrases and buzzwords can tell us much about a year past — what resonated, what stuck, what the year revealed about the sensibility of the nation, whether you’re a wise Latina woman, a mini-Madoff, a teabagger or Balloon Boy...
orphan books
Volumes still in copyright but out of print and unavailable for sale, and whose copyright holders cannot be found. Rose in 2007 but peaked this year with the fierce discussion over the proposed Google Books settlement."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/weekinreview/20buzz.html?scp=5&sq=copyright&st=cse
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Beyond 1923: Characteristics of Potentially In-copyright Print Books in Library Collections
Brian Lavoie, Lorcan Dempsey, D-Lib Magazine; Beyond 1923: Characteristics of Potentially In-copyright Print Books in Library Collections:
"Introduction
Issues of copyright and permissible use have swirled around efforts to digitize print book collections. Sharp debate has ensued over the circumstances in which creating a digital surrogate and making it accessible online runs afoul of copyright protections, and what remedies might be appropriate to compensate rights holders. Some digitization efforts, such as the Open Content Alliance, have restricted themselves to public domain materials; Google Books, on the other hand, has sought to reach agreement with copyright holders represented by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. A proposed class-action settlement,1 announced in October 2008, would create a Book Rights Registry responsible for administering and adjudicating the process of locating and compensating rights holders impacted by Google's digitization activities.
The Google book settlement provoked spirited discussion of its potential ramifications, mimicking the commotion that followed the announcement of the original Google Print for Libraries (later re-named Google Books) project in December 2004. Using data from the WorldCat bibliographic database,2 OCLC Research published an article in 2005 aimed at illuminating issues surrounding Google's plan to digitize the print book collections of five major research libraries. The present article is motivated by a similar purpose: to provide empirical context for the many discussions surrounding the digitization of in-copyright print books. The settlement has raised challenging questions regarding permissible use of print book titles published after 1923; many of these titles may eventually form a significant part of the Google book database should it come to pass.
Discussions of Google Books and other digitization efforts tend to treat in-copyright print books as an amorphous collection, with little elaboration or detail on what this important collection of materials actually looks like. How many titles are involved? What is the distribution of their publication dates? What general observations can be made about their content? This article examines these and other questions in regard to the collection of US-published print books represented in WorldCat. Many of these questions were posed to the authors in private inquiries; these inquiries, along with the keen interest in digitization that continues to spark debate on blogs and listservs, suggested that a general publication addressing the characteristics of in-copyright print books could provide helpful context for ongoing discussions.
The focus of this article is on print book titles that are either in-copyright or potentially in-copyright. Determining copyright status is, however, problematic. The nuances of US copyright law are quite complicated, but a useful simplification organizes print books into three categories of copyright status based on date of publication. Broadly speaking, works published before 1923 are considered in the public domain, and therefore unencumbered by copyright restrictions. The copyright status of books published between 1923 and 1963, however, is murkier. Under US copyright law, works published during this period with a copyright notice remain in copyright for 95 years after publication – if their copyright was renewed. If copyright was allowed to lapse, the work reverts to the public domain. Finally, books published after 1963 are, by and large, still in copyright.
In addition to copyright status, the question of orphan works has received much attention in regard to digitization activities. The United States Copyright Office defines an orphan work as "the situation where the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be identified and located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a manner that requires permission of the copyright owner."3 While it is important to bear in mind that any in-copyright book can be an "orphan", in practice the prevalence of orphan works is likely to be skewed toward older, rather than recently published, materials.
The analysis that follows examines the characteristics of US-published print books, with an emphasis on books that are likely in copyright according to US copyright law.4 As with our earlier article, the analysis is based on data from the WorldCat database, which represents the aggregated collections of more than 70,000 libraries worldwide. The analysis focuses on three areas: the WorldCat aggregate collection of US-published print books; the subset of this collection published during or after 1923 – i.e., those potentially associated with copyright and/or orphan works issues; and the combined print book collection of three academic research library participants in Google Books – again, with an emphasis on materials that are potentially in copyright."
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november09/lavoie/11lavoie.html
"Introduction
Issues of copyright and permissible use have swirled around efforts to digitize print book collections. Sharp debate has ensued over the circumstances in which creating a digital surrogate and making it accessible online runs afoul of copyright protections, and what remedies might be appropriate to compensate rights holders. Some digitization efforts, such as the Open Content Alliance, have restricted themselves to public domain materials; Google Books, on the other hand, has sought to reach agreement with copyright holders represented by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. A proposed class-action settlement,1 announced in October 2008, would create a Book Rights Registry responsible for administering and adjudicating the process of locating and compensating rights holders impacted by Google's digitization activities.
The Google book settlement provoked spirited discussion of its potential ramifications, mimicking the commotion that followed the announcement of the original Google Print for Libraries (later re-named Google Books) project in December 2004. Using data from the WorldCat bibliographic database,2 OCLC Research published an article in 2005 aimed at illuminating issues surrounding Google's plan to digitize the print book collections of five major research libraries. The present article is motivated by a similar purpose: to provide empirical context for the many discussions surrounding the digitization of in-copyright print books. The settlement has raised challenging questions regarding permissible use of print book titles published after 1923; many of these titles may eventually form a significant part of the Google book database should it come to pass.
Discussions of Google Books and other digitization efforts tend to treat in-copyright print books as an amorphous collection, with little elaboration or detail on what this important collection of materials actually looks like. How many titles are involved? What is the distribution of their publication dates? What general observations can be made about their content? This article examines these and other questions in regard to the collection of US-published print books represented in WorldCat. Many of these questions were posed to the authors in private inquiries; these inquiries, along with the keen interest in digitization that continues to spark debate on blogs and listservs, suggested that a general publication addressing the characteristics of in-copyright print books could provide helpful context for ongoing discussions.
The focus of this article is on print book titles that are either in-copyright or potentially in-copyright. Determining copyright status is, however, problematic. The nuances of US copyright law are quite complicated, but a useful simplification organizes print books into three categories of copyright status based on date of publication. Broadly speaking, works published before 1923 are considered in the public domain, and therefore unencumbered by copyright restrictions. The copyright status of books published between 1923 and 1963, however, is murkier. Under US copyright law, works published during this period with a copyright notice remain in copyright for 95 years after publication – if their copyright was renewed. If copyright was allowed to lapse, the work reverts to the public domain. Finally, books published after 1963 are, by and large, still in copyright.
In addition to copyright status, the question of orphan works has received much attention in regard to digitization activities. The United States Copyright Office defines an orphan work as "the situation where the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be identified and located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a manner that requires permission of the copyright owner."3 While it is important to bear in mind that any in-copyright book can be an "orphan", in practice the prevalence of orphan works is likely to be skewed toward older, rather than recently published, materials.
The analysis that follows examines the characteristics of US-published print books, with an emphasis on books that are likely in copyright according to US copyright law.4 As with our earlier article, the analysis is based on data from the WorldCat database, which represents the aggregated collections of more than 70,000 libraries worldwide. The analysis focuses on three areas: the WorldCat aggregate collection of US-published print books; the subset of this collection published during or after 1923 – i.e., those potentially associated with copyright and/or orphan works issues; and the combined print book collection of three academic research library participants in Google Books – again, with an emphasis on materials that are potentially in copyright."
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november09/lavoie/11lavoie.html
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
China backs writers in fight against Google Books; AFP, 11/24/09
AFP; China backs writers in fight against Google Books:
"China said Google has probably breached copyright laws by scanning Chinese books for its online library and supported writers to "defend their rights", state media reported Tuesday.
"I personally think Google is probably involved in copyright infringement," said Wang Ziqiang, a director-general of the National Copyright Administration, according to the Beijing News.
"We support Chinese writers, the China Written Works Copyright Society and the Chinese Writers' Association to defend their rights based on the law and facts."
Wang added that he had "failed to find any solid evidence" to support Google's claim that its scanning and browsing service was legal.
His comments came after the two Chinese writers' groups accused Google of scanning the works of members without authorisation and have demanded it pay compensation "as soon as possible".
According to the copyright society, at least 17,922 books by 570 Chinese authors have been added to Google Books, the US Internet giant's controversial project to digitise millions of books and post them online.
In an effort to resolve the dispute, Google sent a representative to meet the Chinese copyright last Friday, but the outcome of the discussions has not been released."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHpYMlTlt7gOJQB4NnDBqTUzzRWQ
"China said Google has probably breached copyright laws by scanning Chinese books for its online library and supported writers to "defend their rights", state media reported Tuesday.
"I personally think Google is probably involved in copyright infringement," said Wang Ziqiang, a director-general of the National Copyright Administration, according to the Beijing News.
"We support Chinese writers, the China Written Works Copyright Society and the Chinese Writers' Association to defend their rights based on the law and facts."
Wang added that he had "failed to find any solid evidence" to support Google's claim that its scanning and browsing service was legal.
His comments came after the two Chinese writers' groups accused Google of scanning the works of members without authorisation and have demanded it pay compensation "as soon as possible".
According to the copyright society, at least 17,922 books by 570 Chinese authors have been added to Google Books, the US Internet giant's controversial project to digitise millions of books and post them online.
In an effort to resolve the dispute, Google sent a representative to meet the Chinese copyright last Friday, but the outcome of the discussions has not been released."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHpYMlTlt7gOJQB4NnDBqTUzzRWQ
Friday, November 13, 2009
Google Battles For Book Rights; Forbes, 11/12/09
Oxford Analytica, via Forbes; Google Battles for Book Rights:
"A settlement between Google and a U.S. court on the digitization of books is expected this week, after Google presents a new version of its proposed settlement with the Association of American Publishers and the Authors' Guild. If approved, it will enable the full roll-out of Google Books in the U.S. market.
However, in October, the European Commission announced that it wanted to resolve the copyright problem in advance of the U.S. company, which had hitherto set the pace on this issue...
New approach. The Commission has recently taken the initiative on issues of digitization and copyright. Interestingly, while Information Commissioner Vivien Reding has talked much about the possibilities for an E.U. approach to the issue, the Commission's paper makes no direct mention of Google. Perhaps the Commission is trying to walk a line between its own enthusiasm for an E.U. solution, and the clear hostility of some member states towards Google Books. This new stance is in contrast to Reding's earlier "pro-Google" stance and may be related to her concerns to secure a further term in the Commission.
Outlook. While a U.S. settlement for Google looks likely to be reached this week, it may not be acceptable to critics at home and abroad. This provides an opportunity for the Commission to push forward with a European regime for digitized libraries. This will depend on the member states' willingness to harmonize copyright rules, a process where progress in the past has been slow."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/google-books-settlement-business-oxford-europe.html
"A settlement between Google and a U.S. court on the digitization of books is expected this week, after Google presents a new version of its proposed settlement with the Association of American Publishers and the Authors' Guild. If approved, it will enable the full roll-out of Google Books in the U.S. market.
However, in October, the European Commission announced that it wanted to resolve the copyright problem in advance of the U.S. company, which had hitherto set the pace on this issue...
New approach. The Commission has recently taken the initiative on issues of digitization and copyright. Interestingly, while Information Commissioner Vivien Reding has talked much about the possibilities for an E.U. approach to the issue, the Commission's paper makes no direct mention of Google. Perhaps the Commission is trying to walk a line between its own enthusiasm for an E.U. solution, and the clear hostility of some member states towards Google Books. This new stance is in contrast to Reding's earlier "pro-Google" stance and may be related to her concerns to secure a further term in the Commission.
Outlook. While a U.S. settlement for Google looks likely to be reached this week, it may not be acceptable to critics at home and abroad. This provides an opportunity for the Commission to push forward with a European regime for digitized libraries. This will depend on the member states' willingness to harmonize copyright rules, a process where progress in the past has been slow."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/google-books-settlement-business-oxford-europe.html
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
"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
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Google Books Is Not a Library; Huffington Post, 10/13/09
Pamela Samuelson, Huffington Post; Google Books Is Not a Library:
"Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire...
Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search...
If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive.
Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved...
Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same...
Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy...
Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html
"Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire...
Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search...
If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive.
Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved...
Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same...
Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy...
Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Samuelson Says Google Book Search Settlement Doesn’t Fully Reflect “Public Trust Responsibilities”; New York Times, 10/13/09
Norman Oder, New York Times; Samuelson Says Google Book Search Settlement Doesn’t Fully Reflect “Public Trust Responsibilities”:
"“You create a public good this substantial, guess what: public trust responsibilities come with it.” So said University of California law professor Pamela Samuelson Friday during a keynote lunch at the D is for Digitize conference, held at New York Law School.
And Google and the plaintiffs, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, have not responded sufficiently, she said, noting concerns about price-gouging for institutional subscriptions and user privacy. With Samuelson on the dais was Paul Courant, the University of Michigan library dean, a Ph.D economist and self-described “faux librarian,”whose library was the first to agree to have its works scanned by Google and supports the project.
“I think the public trust responsibilities are and ought to be widely shared,” Courant said. His bottom line: the benefits of the deal are worth the costs."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701727.html?desc=topstory
"“You create a public good this substantial, guess what: public trust responsibilities come with it.” So said University of California law professor Pamela Samuelson Friday during a keynote lunch at the D is for Digitize conference, held at New York Law School.
And Google and the plaintiffs, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, have not responded sufficiently, she said, noting concerns about price-gouging for institutional subscriptions and user privacy. With Samuelson on the dais was Paul Courant, the University of Michigan library dean, a Ph.D economist and self-described “faux librarian,”whose library was the first to agree to have its works scanned by Google and supports the project.
“I think the public trust responsibilities are and ought to be widely shared,” Courant said. His bottom line: the benefits of the deal are worth the costs."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701727.html?desc=topstory
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)