Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria: "Somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them."; The Atlantic, April 20, 2017

James Somers, The Atlantic; Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria: "Somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them."

"After the settlement failed, Clancy told me that at Google “there was just this air let out of the balloon.” Despite eventually winning Authors Guild v. Google, and having the courts declare that displaying snippets of copyrighted books was fair use, the company all but shut down its scanning operation.

It was strange to me, the idea that somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25-million books and nobody is allowed to read them. It’s like that scene at the end of the first Indiana Jones movie where they put the Ark of the Covenant back on a shelf somewhere, lost in the chaos of a vast warehouse. It’s there. The books are there. People have been trying to build a library like this for ages—to do so, they’ve said, would be to erect one of the great humanitarian artifacts of all time—and here we’ve done the work to make it real and we were about to give it to the world and now, instead, it’s 50 or 60 petabytes on disk, and the only people who can see it are half a dozen engineers on the project who happen to have access because they’re the ones responsible for locking it up."

Siding With Google, Judge Says Book Search Does Not Infringe Copyright; New York Times, 11/14/13

Claire Cain Miller and Julie Bosman, New York Times; Siding With Google, Judge Says Book Search Does Not Infringe Copyright: "[Judge Denny Chin] cited the benefits for librarians, researchers, students, teachers, scholars, data scientists and underserved populations like disabled people who cannot read print books or those in remote places without libraries. He said it also helped authors and publishers by creating new audiences and sources of income... Paul Aiken, the executive director of the Authors Guild, said in an interview that the result was “obviously disappointing” and that the authors would appeal. “Google created unauthorized digital versions of most of the world’s copyright-protected books — certainly most of the valuable copyright-protected books in the world,” he said.“Google created unauthorized digital versions of most of the world’s copyright-protected books — certainly most of the valuable copyright-protected books in the world,” he said. Google issued a statement that said, “Google Books is in compliance with copyright law and acts like a card catalog for the digital age — giving users the ability to find books to buy or borrow.”... Case law has changed during that time, but so has the attitude toward digital texts, said Jonathan Band, a copyright lawyer for the Library Copyright Alliance, which filed an amicus brief in support of Google. “There’s an understanding that the way this technology works, there’s going to be copying,” he said. “And that there’s a sensibility in the courts that as long as the whole work is not displayed, and as long as the rights-holder isn’t harmed, then this copying that goes on behind the curtain just doesn’t matter.”"

Google prevails over authors in book-scanning U.S. lawsuit; Reuters, 11/14/13

Reuters; Google prevails over authors in book-scanning U.S. lawsuit: "Google Inc on Thursday won dismissal of a lawsuit by authors who accused the Web search and media group of digitally copying millions of books for an online library without permission. U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan accepted Google's argument that its scanning of more than 20 million books, and making "snippets" of text available for online searches, constituted "fair use" under U.S. copyright law."

U.S. judge boosts Google 'fair use' defense of digital books; Reuters, 9/23/13

Reuters; U.S. judge boosts Google 'fair use' defense of digital books: "Google, based in Mountain View, California, has scanned more than 20 million books since its 2004 agreement with libraries worldwide to digitize books. The Authors Guild and groups representing photographers and graphic artists say the project amounts to massive copyright infringement. Google argues the practice constitutes fair use, an exception under U.S. copyright law, because it only provides portions of the works online. At a hearing in U.S. district court in New York on Monday, Judge Denny Chin said the question of fair use relies in part on whether the project "is a benefit to society." Chin then rattled off several examples of how Google's project has helped people find information, including his own law clerks. "Aren't these transformative uses, and don't they benefit society?" asked Chin."fair use,

With Key Filings in, Trials Loom In Google Book Cases; Publishers Weekly, 8/3/12

Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; With Key Filings in, Trials Loom In Google Book Cases:

"With the battle lines now drawn, how is the fight shaping up? At this stage, observers say, the Authors Guild may be facing an uphill charge. “Google and HathiTrust have made a compelling case that digitization to support full-text search and long-term preservation is a fair use,” New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann told PW. On the other hand, he notes, in the HathiTrust case at least, the Authors Guild has simply not made “a convincing case” that there is harm to the copyright owners."

Judge Allows Class-Action Suit Over Google’s Book Scanning; New York Times, 5/31/12

Julie Bosman, New York Times; Judge Allows Class-Action Suit Over Google’s Book Scanning:

"A federal judge in Manhattan granted class-action status on Thursday to authors suing Google over the company’s ambitious book-scanning project, allowing the long-stalled case to move forward...

James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School who has studied the legal aspects of the case, said the judge’s decision “makes it very likely that we’re going to have a very high-stakes decision about Google’s book-scanning project.”"

Google, Author’s Guild Clash Over Class Action and Standing; LibraryJournal.com, 15/10/12

Meredith Schwartz, LibraryJournal.com; Google, Author’s Guild Clash Over Class Action and Standing:

"Judge Chin heard oral argument in the Google Books case on May 4 and ultimately reserved decision. The parties will go ahead with their summary judgment motions, with oral argument scheduled for September."

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."

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."

Google’s Loss: The Public’s Gain; New York Review of Books, 4/28/11

Robert Darnton, New York Review of Books; Google’s Loss: The Public’s Gain:

"It is too early to do a postmortem on Google’s attempt to digitize and sell millions of books, despite the decision by Judge Denny Chin on March 23 to reject the agreement that seemed to make Google’s project possible. Google Book Search may rise from the ashes, reincarnated in some new settlement with the authors and publishers who had taken Google to court for alleged infringement of their copyrights. But this is a good time to take a backward look at the ground covered by Google since it first set out to provide access to all the books in the world. What went wrong?"

Google, Authors, Will Need To Rethink Digital Book Settlement; Intellectual Property Watch, 3/23/11

Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; Google, Authors, Will Need To Rethink Digital Book Settlement:

"In his conclusion, Chin said that objectors, including the US government have said that “many of the concerns raised in the objections would be ameliorated if the ASA were converted from an opt-out settlement to an opt-in settlement.” He urged the parties “to consider revising the ASA accordingly.”"

A Digital Library Better Than Google’s; New York Times, 3/23/11

Robert Darnton, New York Times; A Digital Library Better Than Google’s:

"Perhaps Google itself could be enlisted to the cause of the digital public library. It has scanned about 15 million books; two million of that total are in the public domain and could be turned over to the library as the foundation of its collection. The company would lose nothing by this generosity, and might win admiration for its good deed."

Judge Rejects Google’s Deal to Digitize Books; New York Times, 3/22/11

Miguel Helft, New York Times; Judge Rejects Google’s Deal to Digitize Books:

"A federal judge in New York rejected Google’s $125 million class-action settlement with authors and publishers, delivering a blow to the company’s ambitious plan to build the world’s largest digital library and bookstore.

The deal was rejected by Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court, who said the deal went too far in granting Google rights to exploit books without permission from copyright owners."

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

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

Google books court battle could be page-turner; Chicago Tribune, 12/7/09

Alex Pham, Chicago Tribune; Google books court battle could be page-turner:

""His [Judge Denny Chin's] preliminary approval is just his procedural OK for the parties to go ahead" to the next step of the settlement process, said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School.

By giving his blessing, Chin essentially restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections...

Potentially the most nettlesome is the question of whether the parties in the settlement should have the right to speak for, and profit from, millions of absent copyright holders or orphan books.

Instead, critics have argued that Congress, not a private lawsuit in federal court, is the appropriate venue to settle the conflict because its outcome could alter the rights of many people who may not be aware of the case.

So even if Chin grants final approval, the settlement could remain mired in the courts."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-tech-google-1128-1206dec07,0,2145400.story

Judge rejects Amazon bid to scrap Google pact; Reuters, 12/2/09

Reuters; Judge rejects Amazon bid to scrap Google pact:

"A federal judge has rejected Amazon.com Inc's request that he withdraw preliminary approval of a settlement between Google Inc and groups of authors and publishers to digitize millions of books.

In a Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said he planned to conduct a "thorough fairness analysis" of the settlement at a February 18, 2010 hearing and Amazon could argue its case then."

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5B15KY20091202

Google's book-scanning deal is not sealed yet; LA Times, 11/28/09

Alex Pham, LA Times; Google's book-scanning deal is not sealed yet:

A revised settlement satisfies some objections, but questions over copyright and antitrust laws remain.

"By giving his blessing, Chin in essence restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections. Foes include Google rivals Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp., as well as nonprofit groups such as Consumer Watchdog and the Internet Archive.

Both sides are set to square off before Chin at a Feb. 28 hearing in New York.

The hearing has already been postponed twice -- derailed first in June by authors who said they needed more time to review the complex agreement, and again in October after the Department of Justice weighed in with concerns over antitrust issues and whether authors were given sufficient notice of the settlement."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google-books28-2009nov28,0,4869293.story

Judge sets February hearing for new Google Books deal; CNet News, 11/19/09

Tom Krazit, CNet News; Judge sets February hearing for new Google Books deal:

"The judge overseeing the Google Books case has laid out the schedule for the second round of the final approval process, at the same time granting preliminary approval of the revised deal.

Like before, opponents of Google's settlement with groups representing authors and publishers will have a comment period in which to file objections, and books rights holders who want to preserve their abilty to sue Google for scanning their books will have an opt-out deadline. The final hearing is set for February 18 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

After numerous interest groups and the Department of Justice objected to Google's original settlement over digital books scanning, the parties submitted a revised settlement late Friday night that amended the size of the class affected by the deal and wrote into the document explicit guarantees regarding access to the scanned material that were previously mere promises.

This wasn't enough to satisfy Google's most persistent critics, however, who will likely fill Judge Denny Chin's mailbox with objections to the revised settlement much the same way they did prior to the original September deadline. After the DOJ filed its own set of objections, final approval of the settlement was delayed until the parties could work out something more amenable to the government.

Opponents will have until January 28th to file objections with the court. That's also the same date for affected class members to decide whether or not they would like to opt out of the amended agreement.

Rights holders who opted out of the previous agreement also have until January to decide if they would like to opt into the revised agreement, otherwise the court will assume they still wish to opt out. Those who missed the deadline the first time around have a second chance to opt out by January 28th.

Google released a statement regarding the court filing. "The preliminary approval order sends a positive initial message; this agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form. We remain hopeful that the agreement will receive final approval from the court and will realize the goal of significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web."

The Open Books Alliance, which has vigorously opposed the settlement, weighed in a little later with a statement of their own.

"Today, in an expected procedural move, Judge Denny Chin granted preliminary approval to the revised Settlement of Google's copyright infringement lawsuit. This is not a surprising development and is not any indication that the court will or will not accept the terms of Settlement 2.0. The same procedural preliminary approval was given to Settlement 1.0, and now sets up a court process that will allow those opposed to the revised settlement to let their objections known to the court. The U.S. Department of Justice has until February 4th to weigh in with the court, as their investigation into the matter continues.""

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10402125-265.html

Google, book publishers to reveal new settlement; Associated Press, 11/13/09

Associated Press; Google, book publishers to reveal new settlement:

"The future of Google's plans to scan and sell millions of books online could begin to take shape Friday.

Google Inc. and book publishers are expected to show a federal judge in New York a new settlement in the copyright lawsuit over Google's book-scanning project.

Monday had been the deadline for a new deal, but they got an extension to Friday."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9BUQ5582