Whose “It’s a Wonderful Life” Is It Anyway?; The Nation, December 25, 2023

 RAY NOWOSIELSKI and DAVID CASSIDY, The Nation; Whose “It’s a Wonderful Life” Is It Anyway?

"The broad outlines of the Wonderful Life copyright story have been known for decades, though the details have remained murky until now. It goes something like this: The movie underperformed at the box office in 1947 and was largely forgotten—until a copyright renewal “whoops” in 1974 saw the movie seemingly fall into the public domain. Local television stations began playing the free content, only to discover a strangely receptive audience among Americans of the early 1980s—when the film become a cultural behemoth. Then, somehow, Republic Pictures found a way to reclaim the rights and make a TV deal with NBC, where it has aired ever since...

The ironic parallels to the story in the movie are hard to ignore. All-time American movie villain Henry F. Potter’s great vice is not being a banker or a business man or a capitalist—it’s his urge towards monopoly.

“He’s already got charge of the bank,” explains George Bailey to his community during the famous “bank run” scene. “He’s got the bus line. He’s got the department stores. And now he’s after us. Why? Well, it’s very simple. Because we’re cutting in on his business, that’s why. And because he wants to keep you living in his slums and paying the kind of rent he decides.”

The full story of Wonderful Life’s journey is detailed in our new podcast George Bailey Was Never Born. Merry Christmas!"

2-Groups call for EU scrutiny of Google book deal; Reuters, 9/18/09

James Pethokoukis, Reuters; 2-Groups call for EU scrutiny of Google book deal:

"A hearing held by the European Commission on the matter onSept. 7 and attended by interested parties and Google officialsfailed to answer critics' questions, the groups said in aletter to EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy,Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes and six othercommissioners.

Signatories to the letter include Microsoft-sponsored
MSFT.0 lobbying group ICOMP, the German Publishers and
Booksellers Association, German lobbying group SuMa and CEPIC,
which represents about 1,000 picture associations, agencies and
libraries in Europe.

"We believe (the settlement) is unacceptable in its present
form as it violates the rights of copyright holders and authors
and would lead to a de facto monopoly," the groups said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSLI32506320090918

U.S. Presses Antitrust Inquiry Into Google Book Settlement; New York Times, 6/10/09

Miguel Helft via New York Times; U.S. Presses Antitrust Inquiry Into Google Book Settlement:

"In a sign that the government has stepped up its antitrust investigation of a class-action settlement between Google and groups representing authors and publishers, the Justice Department has issued formal requests for information to several of the parties involved.

The Justice Department has sent the requests, called civil investigative demands, to various parties, including Google, the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild and individual publishers, said Michael J. Boni, a partner at Boni & Zack, who represented the Authors Guild in negotiations with Google.

“They are asking for a lot of information,” Mr. Boni said. “It signals that they are serious about the antitrust implications of the settlement.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/technology/companies/10book.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20book&st=cse

Critics: Google Book Deal a Monopoly, Privacy Debacle; Wired.com, 6/2/09

Ryan Singel via Wired.com; Critics: Google Book Deal a Monopoly, Privacy Debacle:

"Google set out to digitize the world’s books in 2003, got sued for its trouble in 2005 by publishers and authors wanting to make money from the efforts, and in 2007 came to a proposed settlement that gives Google the rights to scan, index, display and even sell millions of books that are in copyright. So far its Google Book Search program has digitized around 10 million books from the some of the nation’s most prestigious university libraries, but only small portions of most in-copyright books are shown online currently.

(Learn more with Wired.com’s Google Book Search Settlement FAQ.)

Even the deal’s critics — such as New York University professor James Grimmelmann — admit that the deal sounds great: Books in copyright but out-of-print become available for viewing and purchase by the public, and researchers and students at universities will get access to the full technology.

But Grimmelmann, whose Google Book Search research has been funded by Microsoft, says that the Google deal gives it exclusive rights to books that are in copyright whose authors can’t be found — so-called orphan works — and that any competitor who wants to try the same project could get sued for huge sums of money.

That makes a monopoly, Grimmelmann told conference goers at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Washington, D.C. Tuesday."

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/google_books/

Librarian Opposes Google's Library Fees, NPR's All Things Considered, 2/21/09

Podcast via NPR's All Things Considered; Librarian Opposes Google's Library Fees [4 min. 29 sec.]:

"Google wants to give you access to its huge database of scanned, out-of-print books, but the company is going to charge for it. Robert Darnton, head librarian at Harvard University, says the deal violates a basic American principle — that knowledge should be free and accessible to all."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810

Google’s Plan for Out-of-Print Books Is Challenged, The New York Times, 4/3/09

The New York Times; Google’s Plan for Out-of-Print Books Is Challenged:

"The dusty stacks of the nation’s great university and research libraries are full of orphans — books that the author and publisher have essentially abandoned. They are out of print, and while they remain under copyright, the rights holders are unknown or cannot be found.

Now millions of orphan books may get a new legal guardian. Google has been scanning the pages of those books and others as part of its plan to bring a digital library and bookstore, unprecedented in scope, to computer screens across the United States.

But a growing chorus is complaining that a far-reaching settlement of a suit brought against Google by publishers and authors is about to grant the company too much power over orphan works...

The settlement, “takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,” said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. “Google will be a monopoly.”...

Most of the critics, which include copyright specialists, antitrust scholars and some librarians, agree that the public will benefit...

“They are doing an end run around the legislative process,” said Brewster Kahle, founder of the Open Content Alliance, which is working to build a digital library with few restrictions.

Opposition to the 134-page agreement, which the parties announced in October, has been building slowly as its implications have become clearer. Groups that plan to raise concerns with the court include the American Library Association, the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School and a group of lawyers led by Prof. Charles R. Nesson of Harvard Law School. It is not clear that any group will oppose the settlement outright.

These critics say the settlement, which is subject to court approval, will give Google virtually exclusive rights to publish the books online and to profit from them. Some academics and public interest groups plan to file legal briefs objecting to this and other parts of the settlement in coming weeks, before a review by a federal judge in June...

The settlement, which covers all books protected by copyright in the United States, allows Google to vastly expand what it can do with digital copies of books, whether they are orphans or not."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/technology/internet/04books.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20book&st=cse

Once More, With Feeling: Copyright Is Not A Welfare System For Musicians, TechDirt, 11/26/08

Via TechDirt: Once More, With Feeling: Copyright Is Not A Welfare System For Musicians:

"Performance rights in the UK only last 50 years, so music performed in the 60s has started to move into the public domain, and some musicians are freaking out...

First of all, copyright was never intended to be a welfare system. Studio musicians knew the terms of the deal, and if they chose to rely on earnings from a single performance in 1958 for 50 years, it's difficult to see why the government should bail them out for their own short-sighted thinking, and their decision to live off of a single performance for all those years...

But, of course, that won't stop the propaganda fueled by the record labels who stand to make a nice, totally unearned, profit from an extension. They've put together a video of these "poor studio musicians" begging the government for a handout...

The UK government should reject this blatant and unfair renegotiation of terms, and tell the musicians if they want to ask someone for a handout, why not turn to the record labels who apparently didn't pay them enough in the first place."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081126/0807212958.shtml