OpEd, Washington Post, via Detroit news; Google book settlement not an open-shut benefit:
"Some call it Alexandria 2.0, and the comparison with the great library of antiquity is apt. Google has digitized millions of books, and if its proposed class-action settlement with their authors and publishers passes muster, these books -- formerly the province of college libraries and research institutions -- will be available to everyone. Google began digitizing books without the permission of copyright holders, claiming fair use. This provoked a class-action lawsuit on the part of authors and publishers, resulting in a settlement that offers many boons for the public.
Books already in the public domain will be freely available, and those still under copyright will be available in a standard 20 percent preview. Google will also provide free public access to the entire online repository of content at terminals in nearly 20,000 public and university libraries across the country, only charging fees to print.
But wait, there's more! Google gives book rights holders tremendous control. They can decide what price to charge for their works, control the amount available in the free preview, and add and remove works from the online collection. And the settlement establishes a nonprofit organization, the Book Rights Registry, to locate content owners and serve as a clearinghouse through which they can receive payment from Google and negotiate with new entrants to the digital market.
What about books still under copyright whose owners have not been located -- so-called "orphan" books? Google's claim makes sense: Many rights holders will emerge once they see that their work has value, but it is also in the registry's charter to seek out these rights holders. As Google Book Search generates revenue for content creators, the owners of all but the least-accessed, least-valuable books will probably come forward.
So it's curious that Google felt the need to include a clause in the settlement to prevent the registry, negotiating on behalf of "orphan" books, from offering a better deal to any of the company's competitors within its first 10 years. Google's argument is that it performed a public service by setting up the registry, investing millions of dollars in what will be a non-affiliated, nonprofit organization. This hefty initial investment would not be required of future entrants to the market, leaving Google at a disadvantage. Protection would ensure a level playing field. But if the set of protected books encompasses only those so valueless that no one will come forward to claim them, it is baffling why protection from competition in this area would be valuable. If, on the other hand, locating book rights holders requires time and effort, and the market for digitized versions of these books is easy enough to enter that a competitor could offer a better deal, this clause would create a real barrier to competition.
Google's innovative efforts will enhance the world's access to knowledge, but that doesn't mean it deserves to have it both ways. Its settlement is in many ways better for consumers than the possible outcome of litigation. But the fact that what Google is doing is wonderful should not preclude the potential to do better."
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090912/OPINION01/909120311/1008/OPINION01/Google-book-settlement-not-an-open-shut-benefit
Showing posts with label orphan works. Show all posts
Showing posts with label orphan works. Show all posts
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Google Books moves to reassure EU publishers; Yahoo, 9/7/09
Aoife White, AP, via Yahoo; Google Books moves to reassure EU publishers:
"Google sought to assure European copyright holders that the deal wouldn't infringe their rights, saying it wrote to several national publisher associations "to clarify that books that are commercially available in Europe will be treated as commercially available under the settlement."...
Unlike the U.S., Google is only scanning European books over 150 years of age to avoid infringing copyrighted material. So far, it has scanned some 10 million books — many of them still in copyright.
Google Books has strong advocates and harsh critics in Europe. While library associations pleaded for Europeans to have more access to the content available to U.S. users of Google Books, some rights holders complained that Google was creating a dangerous new monopoly...
Some European libraries see the project more favorably. Sylvia Van Peteghem, the chief librarian of Belgium's Ghent University, said her work with Google had prompted users to increasingly seek out paper versions of scanned books.
"It's a revival of old books," she said, praising a project that created a digital backup of books that can easily be damaged or stolen.
LIBER, the League of European Research Libraries, said it wants Google to show that it will act as a long-term trustee for printed material and provide ways for scanned books to be available for decades to come.
European officials have also called for a debate — and possibly new rules — to clarify what can be done with "orphan" books that are still in copyright but which cannot be reprinted or digitized because the copyright holders cannot be traced."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Google-Books-moves-to-apf-3368778091.html?x=0&.v=1
"Google sought to assure European copyright holders that the deal wouldn't infringe their rights, saying it wrote to several national publisher associations "to clarify that books that are commercially available in Europe will be treated as commercially available under the settlement."...
Unlike the U.S., Google is only scanning European books over 150 years of age to avoid infringing copyrighted material. So far, it has scanned some 10 million books — many of them still in copyright.
Google Books has strong advocates and harsh critics in Europe. While library associations pleaded for Europeans to have more access to the content available to U.S. users of Google Books, some rights holders complained that Google was creating a dangerous new monopoly...
Some European libraries see the project more favorably. Sylvia Van Peteghem, the chief librarian of Belgium's Ghent University, said her work with Google had prompted users to increasingly seek out paper versions of scanned books.
"It's a revival of old books," she said, praising a project that created a digital backup of books that can easily be damaged or stolen.
LIBER, the League of European Research Libraries, said it wants Google to show that it will act as a long-term trustee for printed material and provide ways for scanned books to be available for decades to come.
European officials have also called for a debate — and possibly new rules — to clarify what can be done with "orphan" books that are still in copyright but which cannot be reprinted or digitized because the copyright holders cannot be traced."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Google-Books-moves-to-apf-3368778091.html?x=0&.v=1
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Tome raider; Economist, 9/3/09
Economist; Tome raider:
A fuss over the internet search firm’s effort to build a huge digital library
"PAUL COURANT, the dean of libraries at the University of Michigan, jokes that he also runs “an orphanage”. Among the books on his shelves are such seminal texts as “Blunder Out of China” and “The Appalachian Frontier: America’s First Surge Westward”, which are protected by copyrights belonging to people who cannot be found. Known as “orphan” books, such titles are one element of a controversial plan by Google, the world’s biggest internet company, to create a vast online library...
Opposition to the deal is brewing all around the world. On August 31st the German government filed a submission to the American court arguing that the agreement, which encompasses books by German authors published in the United States, would violate Germany’s copyright law. French publishers also claim the agreement will contravene laws in their homeland. They note that there are no plans for European representatives on the book-rights registry that would be set up under the deal to collect and distribute payments due to copyright owners. This has heightened suspicions that foreigners will be fleeced.
In Japan two noted writers have filed a complaint with local authorities about Google’s actions. Many American firms oppose the deal, including Microsoft and Yahoo!, two of Google’s big competitors, as well as Amazon, a big retailer of books in both paper and electronic form. Amazon argues that Congress, rather than Google and its allies, should decide how copyrights should be handled in the digital age.
Together with the Internet Archive, a non-profit organisation which runs a rival project to digitise libraries’ contents, these firms have formed a group called the Open Book Alliance to campaign against the agreement. A posting on the Alliance’s website claims that the agreement would create a monopoly in digital books that would inevitably lead to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. Such complaints have attracted the attention of America’s Department of Justice, which is examining the agreement to see whether it is anti-competitive. It is due to send its findings to the court by September 18th."
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14376406
A fuss over the internet search firm’s effort to build a huge digital library
"PAUL COURANT, the dean of libraries at the University of Michigan, jokes that he also runs “an orphanage”. Among the books on his shelves are such seminal texts as “Blunder Out of China” and “The Appalachian Frontier: America’s First Surge Westward”, which are protected by copyrights belonging to people who cannot be found. Known as “orphan” books, such titles are one element of a controversial plan by Google, the world’s biggest internet company, to create a vast online library...
Opposition to the deal is brewing all around the world. On August 31st the German government filed a submission to the American court arguing that the agreement, which encompasses books by German authors published in the United States, would violate Germany’s copyright law. French publishers also claim the agreement will contravene laws in their homeland. They note that there are no plans for European representatives on the book-rights registry that would be set up under the deal to collect and distribute payments due to copyright owners. This has heightened suspicions that foreigners will be fleeced.
In Japan two noted writers have filed a complaint with local authorities about Google’s actions. Many American firms oppose the deal, including Microsoft and Yahoo!, two of Google’s big competitors, as well as Amazon, a big retailer of books in both paper and electronic form. Amazon argues that Congress, rather than Google and its allies, should decide how copyrights should be handled in the digital age.
Together with the Internet Archive, a non-profit organisation which runs a rival project to digitise libraries’ contents, these firms have formed a group called the Open Book Alliance to campaign against the agreement. A posting on the Alliance’s website claims that the agreement would create a monopoly in digital books that would inevitably lead to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. Such complaints have attracted the attention of America’s Department of Justice, which is examining the agreement to see whether it is anti-competitive. It is due to send its findings to the court by September 18th."
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14376406
I'm booking a seat for Google's battle to buy our literary heritage; Observer, 9/6/09
John Naughton via Observer; I'm booking a seat for Google's battle to buy our literary heritage:
"On the one hand, Google clearly has the capacity to make available everything that's ever been published in print - so that anyone with an internet connection can, in principle (and sometimes for a fee), read books otherwise buried in the collections of elite university libraries. And there's clearly a social benefit in that.
On the other hand, think of the downsides. A single commercial company will control much of our cultural heritage. Because it's a settlement based on a class action suit, it will give Google a uniquely privileged position in relation to "orphan" works - ie, those which are still in copyright but for which no owner can be located - which will not be enjoyed by anyone else. And thirdly, it will hand the power to determine access fees to a pair of unaccountable monopolies - Google and the digital rights registry. So it's deeply anti-competitive.
There is a simple remedy for much of this: a change in the law to reverse the fact that copyright infringement carries strict liability, which means that there is effectively no limit on damages. This is why so many orphan works remain effectively unavailable: people are too scared to make them available.
But changing copyright law takes aeons and Judge Chin has to decide now. I bet he has an interesting inbox. But I wouldn't want his job for all the IP in China."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/06/google-digital-books-chin
"On the one hand, Google clearly has the capacity to make available everything that's ever been published in print - so that anyone with an internet connection can, in principle (and sometimes for a fee), read books otherwise buried in the collections of elite university libraries. And there's clearly a social benefit in that.
On the other hand, think of the downsides. A single commercial company will control much of our cultural heritage. Because it's a settlement based on a class action suit, it will give Google a uniquely privileged position in relation to "orphan" works - ie, those which are still in copyright but for which no owner can be located - which will not be enjoyed by anyone else. And thirdly, it will hand the power to determine access fees to a pair of unaccountable monopolies - Google and the digital rights registry. So it's deeply anti-competitive.
There is a simple remedy for much of this: a change in the law to reverse the fact that copyright infringement carries strict liability, which means that there is effectively no limit on damages. This is why so many orphan works remain effectively unavailable: people are too scared to make them available.
But changing copyright law takes aeons and Judge Chin has to decide now. I bet he has an interesting inbox. But I wouldn't want his job for all the IP in China."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/06/google-digital-books-chin
Friday, August 21, 2009
Life in a Google Book Search World; Inside Higher Ed, 8/12/09
Inside Higher Ed; Life in a Google Book Search World:
While the settlement gives lawyers and scholars fodder for debating the intricacies of often arcane antitrust law provisions, its real-world implications for university research libraries are already apparent, according to Jonathan Band, legal counsel for the Library Copyright Alliance, which represents thousands of libraries in three major associations. Speaking at a panel on the Google settlement at the National Press Club here Tuesday, Band said it is obvious that any library that hopes to remain competitive will be forced to purchase an institutional subscription from Google Book Search.
“[The university’s] faculty will insist upon it,” he said. “Its students will insist upon it.”
“There’s a product they have to have, and in essence there’s one supplier,” Band added.
The cost of institutional subscriptions, which will last for a limited period before renewal is necessary, will differ across institutions based in part on enrollment numbers, according to the settlement. Libraries that purchase subscription services will gain access to the full text of Google’s entire library, which now contains more than 7 million books. The search engine’s immodest goal from the outset, however, has been to eventually put the world’s written history at the public’s fingertips.
For all the concerns that Google’s Book Search provokes, there seems little argument that the basic concept -- broad-based access to knowledge -- serves an inherent good. Researchers are unsurprisingly excited by the possibilities presented by a searchable full-text database of obscure, forgotten works. But it is Google’s potential hold on those obscure works that most worries James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at New York Law School.
Grimmelmann is particularly concerned about the Google settlement’s treatment of so-called “orphan” works, a term used to describe books for whom the copyright owner may be unknown or nonexistent. Since copyright endures for 70 years beyond an author’s death, it's possible that an author’s grandchild or other relative may unknowingly hold a copyright, making it practically impossible to track him or her down.
Under the settlement, Google is permitted to presume it has the consent of any as-yet-undiscovered copyright owner -- insulating the company from costly legal challenges that another would-be book digitizer might invoke when scanning orphan works.
In the context of competition, the orphan works are “the thing [Google has] that no competitor could hope to match,” Grimmelmann said.
Grimmelmann’s concerns about orphan works are misguided and overblown, according to David Balto, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “Orphan” status is only bestowed upon books for which publishers see no viable market, and whose “parents” are “indifferent,” he said. Essentially, such works have little value, and therefore hardly give Google an advantage, Balto said.
While Grimmelmann readily praised the potential benefit of Google’s digitization project, he said the project’s social good does not erase his concerns about Google’s unfair advantage.
“We wouldn’t say a monopolist should be excused of particular acts of monopoly because it does other good things,” he said."
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/12/google
While the settlement gives lawyers and scholars fodder for debating the intricacies of often arcane antitrust law provisions, its real-world implications for university research libraries are already apparent, according to Jonathan Band, legal counsel for the Library Copyright Alliance, which represents thousands of libraries in three major associations. Speaking at a panel on the Google settlement at the National Press Club here Tuesday, Band said it is obvious that any library that hopes to remain competitive will be forced to purchase an institutional subscription from Google Book Search.
“[The university’s] faculty will insist upon it,” he said. “Its students will insist upon it.”
“There’s a product they have to have, and in essence there’s one supplier,” Band added.
The cost of institutional subscriptions, which will last for a limited period before renewal is necessary, will differ across institutions based in part on enrollment numbers, according to the settlement. Libraries that purchase subscription services will gain access to the full text of Google’s entire library, which now contains more than 7 million books. The search engine’s immodest goal from the outset, however, has been to eventually put the world’s written history at the public’s fingertips.
For all the concerns that Google’s Book Search provokes, there seems little argument that the basic concept -- broad-based access to knowledge -- serves an inherent good. Researchers are unsurprisingly excited by the possibilities presented by a searchable full-text database of obscure, forgotten works. But it is Google’s potential hold on those obscure works that most worries James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at New York Law School.
Grimmelmann is particularly concerned about the Google settlement’s treatment of so-called “orphan” works, a term used to describe books for whom the copyright owner may be unknown or nonexistent. Since copyright endures for 70 years beyond an author’s death, it's possible that an author’s grandchild or other relative may unknowingly hold a copyright, making it practically impossible to track him or her down.
Under the settlement, Google is permitted to presume it has the consent of any as-yet-undiscovered copyright owner -- insulating the company from costly legal challenges that another would-be book digitizer might invoke when scanning orphan works.
In the context of competition, the orphan works are “the thing [Google has] that no competitor could hope to match,” Grimmelmann said.
Grimmelmann’s concerns about orphan works are misguided and overblown, according to David Balto, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “Orphan” status is only bestowed upon books for which publishers see no viable market, and whose “parents” are “indifferent,” he said. Essentially, such works have little value, and therefore hardly give Google an advantage, Balto said.
While Grimmelmann readily praised the potential benefit of Google’s digitization project, he said the project’s social good does not erase his concerns about Google’s unfair advantage.
“We wouldn’t say a monopolist should be excused of particular acts of monopoly because it does other good things,” he said."
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/12/google
Tech groups join fight against Google books; London Times, 8/21/09
Mike Harvey via London Times; Tech groups join fight against Google books:
"Critics say that the deal gives Google the unimpeded ability to set prices for libraries, once they scan books and put them on the Internet. They also say that it would also allow Google — and only Google — to digitise so-called orphan works, which could pose an antitrust concern. Orphan works are books or other materials that are still covered by US copyright law, but on which ownership rights are not clear.
Google took issue with the criticism. Gabriel Stricker, a spokesman for the company said: "The agreement is not exclusive. If improved by the court, it will expand access to millions of books in the US."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article6805993.ece
"Critics say that the deal gives Google the unimpeded ability to set prices for libraries, once they scan books and put them on the Internet. They also say that it would also allow Google — and only Google — to digitise so-called orphan works, which could pose an antitrust concern. Orphan works are books or other materials that are still covered by US copyright law, but on which ownership rights are not clear.
Google took issue with the criticism. Gabriel Stricker, a spokesman for the company said: "The agreement is not exclusive. If improved by the court, it will expand access to millions of books in the US."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article6805993.ece
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
More Pushback Against the Google Book Search Settlement; Library Journal, 8/11/09
Norman Oder via Library Journal; More Pushback Against the Google Book Search Settlement:
"The Google Book Search Settlement, heading for a court hearing in October but also the subject of a Department of Justice antitrust inquiry, is beginning to generate more skepticism from arbiters of the public interest...
Questions of fairness
Samuelson questions whether the AAP and AG were fair representatives of the larger classes, and whether the Book Rights Registry can represent “the thousands of times larger and more diverse class of authors and publishers of books from all over the world.”
She noted, for example, that many academic authors “would much rather make their works available on an open access basis than to sign up with the Registry.”
Her subsequent column will explore why the Antitrust Division is investigating. In response, Law professor Mike Madison predicted, “The Justice Department will, in the end, facilitate a deal that gives other book scanning projects a release regarding orphan works that is comparable to what Google is getting via the settlement.”
Should authors opt out?
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that agency William Morris Endeavor has advised authors it represents to opt out of the settlement because it would “bind copyright owners in any book published prior to January 9, 2009 to its terms.”
The Authors Guild responded that William Morris was off-base."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6675916.html
"The Google Book Search Settlement, heading for a court hearing in October but also the subject of a Department of Justice antitrust inquiry, is beginning to generate more skepticism from arbiters of the public interest...
Questions of fairness
Samuelson questions whether the AAP and AG were fair representatives of the larger classes, and whether the Book Rights Registry can represent “the thousands of times larger and more diverse class of authors and publishers of books from all over the world.”
She noted, for example, that many academic authors “would much rather make their works available on an open access basis than to sign up with the Registry.”
Her subsequent column will explore why the Antitrust Division is investigating. In response, Law professor Mike Madison predicted, “The Justice Department will, in the end, facilitate a deal that gives other book scanning projects a release regarding orphan works that is comparable to what Google is getting via the settlement.”
Should authors opt out?
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that agency William Morris Endeavor has advised authors it represents to opt out of the settlement because it would “bind copyright owners in any book published prior to January 9, 2009 to its terms.”
The Authors Guild responded that William Morris was off-base."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6675916.html
National Writers Union Opposes Google Book Settlement; Wired.com's Epicenter, 8/13/09
Ryan Singel via Wired.com's Epicenter; National Writers Union Opposes Google Book Settlement:
"Add yet another voice to the chorus of protests over a proposed settlement of a class-action copyright suit that clears Google to transform the world’s dusty library tomes into the bookstore and online library of the future.
This time, the National Writers Union — which represents some 1,500 freelance writers — described a proposed deal as “grossly unfair to writers.”...
But Google should not have digitized books without authors’ permission, said Larry Goldbetter, the president of the National Writers Union, which operates as a local of the United Auto Workers. Google argues such scanning is covered by the Fair Use provision of copyright law, which allows for transformative and partial uses of copyright material.
“[W]riters whose copyrights were violated might receive a check for between $60 and $300 for each book and $15 per article,” he added. “Compared to the number and seriousness of the violations, the amount being offered by Google to each writer is ridiculously low.”"
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/national-writers-union-opposes-google-book-settlement/
"Add yet another voice to the chorus of protests over a proposed settlement of a class-action copyright suit that clears Google to transform the world’s dusty library tomes into the bookstore and online library of the future.
This time, the National Writers Union — which represents some 1,500 freelance writers — described a proposed deal as “grossly unfair to writers.”...
But Google should not have digitized books without authors’ permission, said Larry Goldbetter, the president of the National Writers Union, which operates as a local of the United Auto Workers. Google argues such scanning is covered by the Fair Use provision of copyright law, which allows for transformative and partial uses of copyright material.
“[W]riters whose copyrights were violated might receive a check for between $60 and $300 for each book and $15 per article,” he added. “Compared to the number and seriousness of the violations, the amount being offered by Google to each writer is ridiculously low.”"
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/national-writers-union-opposes-google-book-settlement/
Monday, August 17, 2009
U.C. Professors Air Google Book Search Settlement Concerns; eWeek.com, 8/17/09
Clint Boulton via eWeek.com; U.C. Professors Air Google Book Search Settlement Concerns:
"Eighteen faculty members for the University of California say they are concerned about the Google Book Search settlement. Though the professors aren't opposing the deal, they are seeking changes that will prevent price-gouging, as well as mechanisms to let academic authors of orphan books license their books to the public domain or Creative Commons. They also share the privacy concerns voiced earlier by the ACLU and EFF."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/UC-Professors-Air-Google-Book-Search-Settlement-Concerns-862110/
"Eighteen faculty members for the University of California say they are concerned about the Google Book Search settlement. Though the professors aren't opposing the deal, they are seeking changes that will prevent price-gouging, as well as mechanisms to let academic authors of orphan books license their books to the public domain or Creative Commons. They also share the privacy concerns voiced earlier by the ACLU and EFF."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/UC-Professors-Air-Google-Book-Search-Settlement-Concerns-862110/
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Op-Ed: Is Google playing by the book?; Christian Science Monitor, 8/7/09
Op-Ed: Christian Science Monitor; Is Google playing by the book?:
The search giant is on its way to becoming the world's digital library, but a private monopoly raises questions.:
"The idea of digitizing the world's written record and making it freely available to everyone is exhilarating. The ability of a student in Alabama or Albania to have access to the contents of the world's libraries online at their fingertips, for example, is a powerful concept and just one of the ways a free and open Web can lift humanity.
But history shows that when a company – even one with talent and good intentions – acts like a monopoly, it is subject to abuses. Despite the potentially monumental effects of this settlement, it has had little public scrutiny. Yet it needs a rigorous examination.
If it stands, the agreement must include long-term safeguards that allow public access to the full collection at reasonable cost, maintain the rights of copyright holders, and ensure the necessary privacy of those who use the service."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0807/p08s01-comv.html
The search giant is on its way to becoming the world's digital library, but a private monopoly raises questions.:
"The idea of digitizing the world's written record and making it freely available to everyone is exhilarating. The ability of a student in Alabama or Albania to have access to the contents of the world's libraries online at their fingertips, for example, is a powerful concept and just one of the ways a free and open Web can lift humanity.
But history shows that when a company – even one with talent and good intentions – acts like a monopoly, it is subject to abuses. Despite the potentially monumental effects of this settlement, it has had little public scrutiny. Yet it needs a rigorous examination.
If it stands, the agreement must include long-term safeguards that allow public access to the full collection at reasonable cost, maintain the rights of copyright holders, and ensure the necessary privacy of those who use the service."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0807/p08s01-comv.html
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Google pushes for new law on orphan books; CNet News, 7/31/09
Tom Krazit via CNet News; Google pushes for new law on orphan books:
"If those organizations attacking Google's book search settlement with publishers spent as much time lobbying Congress for better laws concerning those issues, perhaps the controversy would go away, Google's chief Book Search engineer suggested Thursday night.
Google's quest to convince the world it has nothing to fear by its settlement with publishers came to the Computer History Museum Thursday where Dan Clancy, engineering director for Google Book Search, defended the settlement before a few hundred attendees who submitted written questions to John Hollar, president and CEO of the museum...
The Internet Archive has been one of the more prominent critics of Google's Book Search settlement, and distributed a statement prior to Thursday's event saying just that. "...no one else has the same legal protections that Google has. Would the parties to the settlement amend the settlement to extend legal liability indemnification to any and all digitizers of orphan works? If not, why not leave orphans out of the settlement and compel a legislative solution instead of striking a private deal in a district court?"
Under the settlement, the Books Rights Registry is allowed to cut deals with other companies or organizations looking to digitize books, but they are not allowed to extend the same privileges Google enjoys with respect to orphan works, which Clancy estimated as about 10 percent of the books that are out of print but still protected by copyright.
That's why a legislative solution that fixes the problems concerning orphan works is the best outcome for everyone with a stake in book digitization, and Google is leaning on Congress to get such a law passed, Clancy said. Given the pressing issues before Congress at the moment--not to mention the complexity of copyright law--finding champions for such legislation has been difficult, he said.
Google thinks that by obtaining the right to digitize orphan works, it will stimulate demand for digital book scanning that eventually forces Congress to act. Any law passed to loosen restrictions on the use of orphan works would take precedent over Google's settlement."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10300887-93.html
"If those organizations attacking Google's book search settlement with publishers spent as much time lobbying Congress for better laws concerning those issues, perhaps the controversy would go away, Google's chief Book Search engineer suggested Thursday night.
Google's quest to convince the world it has nothing to fear by its settlement with publishers came to the Computer History Museum Thursday where Dan Clancy, engineering director for Google Book Search, defended the settlement before a few hundred attendees who submitted written questions to John Hollar, president and CEO of the museum...
The Internet Archive has been one of the more prominent critics of Google's Book Search settlement, and distributed a statement prior to Thursday's event saying just that. "...no one else has the same legal protections that Google has. Would the parties to the settlement amend the settlement to extend legal liability indemnification to any and all digitizers of orphan works? If not, why not leave orphans out of the settlement and compel a legislative solution instead of striking a private deal in a district court?"
Under the settlement, the Books Rights Registry is allowed to cut deals with other companies or organizations looking to digitize books, but they are not allowed to extend the same privileges Google enjoys with respect to orphan works, which Clancy estimated as about 10 percent of the books that are out of print but still protected by copyright.
That's why a legislative solution that fixes the problems concerning orphan works is the best outcome for everyone with a stake in book digitization, and Google is leaning on Congress to get such a law passed, Clancy said. Given the pressing issues before Congress at the moment--not to mention the complexity of copyright law--finding champions for such legislation has been difficult, he said.
Google thinks that by obtaining the right to digitize orphan works, it will stimulate demand for digital book scanning that eventually forces Congress to act. Any law passed to loosen restrictions on the use of orphan works would take precedent over Google's settlement."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10300887-93.html
Friday, July 24, 2009
Expanding Access to Books: Implications of the Google Books Settlement Agreement; MIT PressLog, 7/23/09
MIT PressLog; Expanding Access to Books: Implications of the Google Books Settlement Agreement:
"On Wednesday, the Boston Public Library hosted a lively panel on the Google Book Search settlement, the approval for which is currently in the hands of the court. Authors, librarians, publishers, scholars, and other stakeholders packed the Rabb Lecture Hall to hear firsthand about the particulars of the settlement and how it would impact them."
http://mitpress.typepad.com/mitpresslog/2009/07/expanding-access-to-books-implications-of-the-google-books-settlement-agreement-.html
"On Wednesday, the Boston Public Library hosted a lively panel on the Google Book Search settlement, the approval for which is currently in the hands of the court. Authors, librarians, publishers, scholars, and other stakeholders packed the Rabb Lecture Hall to hear firsthand about the particulars of the settlement and how it would impact them."
http://mitpress.typepad.com/mitpresslog/2009/07/expanding-access-to-books-implications-of-the-google-books-settlement-agreement-.html
Thursday, July 2, 2009
U.S. Confirms Investigation of Google Books Deal; New York Times, 7/2/09
Miguel Helft via New York Times; U.S. Confirms Investigation of Google Books Deal:
"Antitrust experts said the letter was the latest indication that the Justice Department is seriously examining complaints that the agreement would grant Google the exclusive right to profit from millions of so-called “orphan works,” books that are out of print and whose authors or rights holders are unknown or cannot be found.
“This is the next step in the notion that this is a serious issue, so serious that the Justice Department needs to notify the court,” said Gary L. Reback, a lawyer at Carr & Ferrell, and the author of a recent book on antitrust issues. “It sets the stage for the department to come into the court to present a problem.”...
In a response, United States District Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, who is charged with reviewing the settlement, set a deadline of Sept. 18 for the government to present its views in writing.
Judge Chin has scheduled a hearing on the settlement for Oct. 7 and said the government could also lay out its views orally at that time.
Opponents of the settlement hailed the department’s letter, saying it was a sign that the government was listening to their complaints.
“We are heartened that the D.O.J. is taking the concerns that we have expressed seriously,” said Peter Brantley, the director of access for the Internet Archive. Mr. Brantley’s organization is spearheading an effort to digitize books from libraries and make them broadly available, in competition with Google’s own digitization project. It has argued that the settlement would make it more difficult for the Internet Archive to pursue its plan.
Google and the other parties to the settlement have vigorously defended it.
“It’s important to note that this agreement is nonexclusive and, if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.,” Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman, said in a statement. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/technology/companies/03google.html?_r=1&ref=technology
"Antitrust experts said the letter was the latest indication that the Justice Department is seriously examining complaints that the agreement would grant Google the exclusive right to profit from millions of so-called “orphan works,” books that are out of print and whose authors or rights holders are unknown or cannot be found.
“This is the next step in the notion that this is a serious issue, so serious that the Justice Department needs to notify the court,” said Gary L. Reback, a lawyer at Carr & Ferrell, and the author of a recent book on antitrust issues. “It sets the stage for the department to come into the court to present a problem.”...
In a response, United States District Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, who is charged with reviewing the settlement, set a deadline of Sept. 18 for the government to present its views in writing.
Judge Chin has scheduled a hearing on the settlement for Oct. 7 and said the government could also lay out its views orally at that time.
Opponents of the settlement hailed the department’s letter, saying it was a sign that the government was listening to their complaints.
“We are heartened that the D.O.J. is taking the concerns that we have expressed seriously,” said Peter Brantley, the director of access for the Internet Archive. Mr. Brantley’s organization is spearheading an effort to digitize books from libraries and make them broadly available, in competition with Google’s own digitization project. It has argued that the settlement would make it more difficult for the Internet Archive to pursue its plan.
Google and the other parties to the settlement have vigorously defended it.
“It’s important to note that this agreement is nonexclusive and, if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.,” Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman, said in a statement. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/technology/companies/03google.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Justice Department Formalizes Probe of Google Books Settlement; Wired, 7/2/09
John C. Abell via Wired; Justice Department Formalizes Probe of Google Books Settlement:
"The settlement, between Google and book authors and publishers, allows the search giant to [sic] to create the worlds’ largest digital library by scanning millions of books housed in the nation’s research libraries. Depending on the copyright status of the book, Google shows snippets to full-texts of the books online and in search results. That prompted the Author’s Guild to sue Google in 2005, leading to a settlement in 2007 that covers all book copyright holders. That deal gives Google various legal rights to scan, index, display and sell all books in print online.
A number of parties have objected to the terms of the deal, including Microsoft, consumer groups and the heirs of Philip K. Dick. The main objection to the deal is the way in which so-called orphan works are treated. Under the terms of the agreement Google is protected from copyright infringement from authors who abandoned their books by not registering in its books database. If they show up later, all they can do is collect a little cash, change their book price or ask Google to stop selling the book. Otherwise infringement can be up to $150,000 per violation."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/justice-department-formalizes-probe-of-google-books-settlement/
"The settlement, between Google and book authors and publishers, allows the search giant to [sic] to create the worlds’ largest digital library by scanning millions of books housed in the nation’s research libraries. Depending on the copyright status of the book, Google shows snippets to full-texts of the books online and in search results. That prompted the Author’s Guild to sue Google in 2005, leading to a settlement in 2007 that covers all book copyright holders. That deal gives Google various legal rights to scan, index, display and sell all books in print online.
A number of parties have objected to the terms of the deal, including Microsoft, consumer groups and the heirs of Philip K. Dick. The main objection to the deal is the way in which so-called orphan works are treated. Under the terms of the agreement Google is protected from copyright infringement from authors who abandoned their books by not registering in its books database. If they show up later, all they can do is collect a little cash, change their book price or ask Google to stop selling the book. Otherwise infringement can be up to $150,000 per violation."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/justice-department-formalizes-probe-of-google-books-settlement/
DOJ Officially Opens Investigation Into Google Book Search; PC World, 7/2/09
Via PC World; DOJ Officially Opens Investigation Into Google Book Search:
"The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed on Thursday that it is investigating a settlement involving Google Book Search for possible antitrust violations, following months of speculation that the agency had its eye on the service.
In a filing to the judge overseeing the settlement of a lawsuit filed by The Authors Guild against Google, the DOJ informed the court that it has opened an investigation into the proposed settlement after reviewing public comments of concern. Those comments suggest that the agreement might violate the Sherman Act, a U.S. antitrust law, the DOJ said.
"The United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry," the letter reads."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/167830/doj_officially_opens_investigation_into_google_book_search.html
"The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed on Thursday that it is investigating a settlement involving Google Book Search for possible antitrust violations, following months of speculation that the agency had its eye on the service.
In a filing to the judge overseeing the settlement of a lawsuit filed by The Authors Guild against Google, the DOJ informed the court that it has opened an investigation into the proposed settlement after reviewing public comments of concern. Those comments suggest that the agreement might violate the Sherman Act, a U.S. antitrust law, the DOJ said.
"The United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry," the letter reads."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/167830/doj_officially_opens_investigation_into_google_book_search.html
Monday, June 29, 2009
Blount Says Orphan Works No Reason to Block Google Settlement; Benefits Touted; Publishers Weekly, 6/25/09
Jim Milliott via Publishers Weekly; Blount Says Orphan Works No Reason to Block Google Settlement; Benefits Touted:
"Wednesday afternoon, the publishers’ partner in the deal, the Authors Guild, posted a letter on its Web site from [Authors] Guild president Roy Blount Jr. talking about orphan works and the benefits the settlement will bring to authors, publishers and readers.
Blount played down concerns expressed by some over orphan works , writing, “ I can’t see any reason to dissent from the settlement over the matter of orphan books.” "
http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=talkbackCommentsFull&talk_back_header_id=6607570&articleid=CA6667338
"Wednesday afternoon, the publishers’ partner in the deal, the Authors Guild, posted a letter on its Web site from [Authors] Guild president Roy Blount Jr. talking about orphan works and the benefits the settlement will bring to authors, publishers and readers.
Blount played down concerns expressed by some over orphan works , writing, “ I can’t see any reason to dissent from the settlement over the matter of orphan books.” "
http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=talkbackCommentsFull&talk_back_header_id=6607570&articleid=CA6667338
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Authors Guild defends Google Books settlement; L.A. Times, 6/25/09
L.A. Times; Authors Guild defends Google Books settlement:
"The Authors Guild, which hasn't said much since last fall after it settled its lawsuit with Google over the search company's book scanning project, today issued a statement defending the settlement against recent criticism.
Specifically, the letter by author and Guild President Roy Blount Jr. addresses the topic of orphan books, which are works that are out-of-print and unclaimed by any copyright holders. You can read the entire letter here."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/06/googlebookssettlementauthorsguild.html
"The Authors Guild, which hasn't said much since last fall after it settled its lawsuit with Google over the search company's book scanning project, today issued a statement defending the settlement against recent criticism.
Specifically, the letter by author and Guild President Roy Blount Jr. addresses the topic of orphan books, which are works that are out-of-print and unclaimed by any copyright holders. You can read the entire letter here."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/06/googlebookssettlementauthorsguild.html
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Librarians Fighting Google's Book Deal; Time, 6/17/09
Janet Morrissey via Time; Librarians Fighting Google's Book Deal:
"Goliath Google facing off against a legion of librarians and, possibly, the U.S. Justice Department — now there's a fight...
In a complex settlement agreement, which took three years to hammer out and spans 135 pages excluding attachments, Google will be allowed to show up to 20% of the books' text online at no charge to Web surfers. But the part of the settlement that deals with so-called orphan books — which refers to out-of-print books whose authors and publishers are unknown — is what's ruffling the most feathers in the literary henhouse. The deal gives Google an exclusive license to publish and profit from these orphans, which means it won't face legal action if an author or owner comes forward later. This, critics contend, gives it a competitive edge over any rival that wants to set up a competing digital library. And without competition, opponents fear Google will start charging exorbitant fees to academic libraries and others who want full access to its digital library.
"It will make Google virtually invulnerable to competition," says Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system.
Although competitors could scan orphans, they would not be protected from copyright suits as Google is under the agreement. "They'd face lawsuits all over the place," making the risk too big, said Darnton.
Without competition, pricing could go wild, critics claim. The registry, which oversees pricing, is comprised of authors and publishers who stand to benefit from high subscription fees. "There will be no incentive to keep prices moderate," Darnton says.
The library community recalls with horror the pricing fiasco that occurred when industry consolidation left academic journals in the hands of five publishing companies. The firms hiked subscription prices 227% over a 14-year period, between 1986 and 2002, forcing cash-strapped libraries to drop many subscriptions, according to Van Orsdel. "The chance of the price being driven up in a similar way (in the Google deal) is really very real," he says.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1904495,00.html?imw=Y
"Goliath Google facing off against a legion of librarians and, possibly, the U.S. Justice Department — now there's a fight...
In a complex settlement agreement, which took three years to hammer out and spans 135 pages excluding attachments, Google will be allowed to show up to 20% of the books' text online at no charge to Web surfers. But the part of the settlement that deals with so-called orphan books — which refers to out-of-print books whose authors and publishers are unknown — is what's ruffling the most feathers in the literary henhouse. The deal gives Google an exclusive license to publish and profit from these orphans, which means it won't face legal action if an author or owner comes forward later. This, critics contend, gives it a competitive edge over any rival that wants to set up a competing digital library. And without competition, opponents fear Google will start charging exorbitant fees to academic libraries and others who want full access to its digital library.
"It will make Google virtually invulnerable to competition," says Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system.
Although competitors could scan orphans, they would not be protected from copyright suits as Google is under the agreement. "They'd face lawsuits all over the place," making the risk too big, said Darnton.
Without competition, pricing could go wild, critics claim. The registry, which oversees pricing, is comprised of authors and publishers who stand to benefit from high subscription fees. "There will be no incentive to keep prices moderate," Darnton says.
The library community recalls with horror the pricing fiasco that occurred when industry consolidation left academic journals in the hands of five publishing companies. The firms hiked subscription prices 227% over a 14-year period, between 1986 and 2002, forcing cash-strapped libraries to drop many subscriptions, according to Van Orsdel. "The chance of the price being driven up in a similar way (in the Google deal) is really very real," he says.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1904495,00.html?imw=Y
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Copyright Holders Acknowledge Losing Battle For Public Consciousness At World Copyright Summit; IP Watch, 6/11/09
Liza Porteus Viana via IP Watch; Copyright Holders Acknowledge Losing Battle For Public Consciousness At World Copyright Summit:
""The enemies of copyright have really done a good job at creating the false premise that the interest of copyright holders and the interest of society as a whole are antagonistic, and they always talk about the need for balance,” said Fritz Attaway, executive vice president and senior policy adviser for the Motion Picture Association of America. “We have got to do a better job” at attempting approaches at copyright protection “in a way that we get paid but also that consumers can access our works,” he added.
He cited MPAA’s work with the technology industry in the introduction of the DVD. He also noted that via Hulu - a joint venture of NBC Universal and News Corp. that offers television shows for free, for now - almost all TV products can be legitimately available to consumers in the United States.
”We’ve got to do more of that. We live in an age where we cannot block access to our content,” he said. “People are going to get it one way or the other. We would like them to pay for it and we need to seek out ways where they can pay for it. But just saying ‘no’ isn’t the answer.”
Eduardo Bautista, president of the management board of Spanish collective management group, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores, agreed, saying, “We’ve done a lousy job. We should have been fired.”
That’s also the message one of those referenced “enemies” tried to relay. Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association and president of the Home Recording Rights Coalition, said content creators cannot simply keep saying “no” - particularly with the next generation’s seemingly rebellious nature - because it will create more anti-copyright backlash.
"Recognise that kids today have been so turned off by the RIAA approach to litigation that they’re rejecting everything you say,” Shapiro said to National Association of Music Publishers President David Israelite.
Although Israelite made the comparison that if people were stealing computers from stores en masse, the technology industry would be up in arms, Shapiro argued that it is not the same, and that copyright and intellectual property rights are different than “real” property - a statement that received groans from the rights holder-friendly audience. “That’s hurting your case because you’re being rejected by anyone under 25 who is saying, ‘these guys are full of it,’” Shapiro continued.
One way to strengthen the creators’ case, particularly given the current state of the global economy, is to stress the economic value of their industry, particularly in developing countries, experts said. The World Intellectual Property Organization, for example, pointed out that the copyright industry is responsible for roughly 6 percent of a developing economy.
”When you bring those figures to the attention of the government of developing countries, they begin to see it differently,” said WIPO Deputy Director General Michael Keplinger. “There’s something in it for them … it’s not just something for America and the Europeans and the Japanese.”"
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/06/11/copyright-holders-acknowledge-losing-battle-for-public-consciousness-at-world-copyright-summit/
""The enemies of copyright have really done a good job at creating the false premise that the interest of copyright holders and the interest of society as a whole are antagonistic, and they always talk about the need for balance,” said Fritz Attaway, executive vice president and senior policy adviser for the Motion Picture Association of America. “We have got to do a better job” at attempting approaches at copyright protection “in a way that we get paid but also that consumers can access our works,” he added.
He cited MPAA’s work with the technology industry in the introduction of the DVD. He also noted that via Hulu - a joint venture of NBC Universal and News Corp. that offers television shows for free, for now - almost all TV products can be legitimately available to consumers in the United States.
”We’ve got to do more of that. We live in an age where we cannot block access to our content,” he said. “People are going to get it one way or the other. We would like them to pay for it and we need to seek out ways where they can pay for it. But just saying ‘no’ isn’t the answer.”
Eduardo Bautista, president of the management board of Spanish collective management group, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores, agreed, saying, “We’ve done a lousy job. We should have been fired.”
That’s also the message one of those referenced “enemies” tried to relay. Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association and president of the Home Recording Rights Coalition, said content creators cannot simply keep saying “no” - particularly with the next generation’s seemingly rebellious nature - because it will create more anti-copyright backlash.
"Recognise that kids today have been so turned off by the RIAA approach to litigation that they’re rejecting everything you say,” Shapiro said to National Association of Music Publishers President David Israelite.
Although Israelite made the comparison that if people were stealing computers from stores en masse, the technology industry would be up in arms, Shapiro argued that it is not the same, and that copyright and intellectual property rights are different than “real” property - a statement that received groans from the rights holder-friendly audience. “That’s hurting your case because you’re being rejected by anyone under 25 who is saying, ‘these guys are full of it,’” Shapiro continued.
One way to strengthen the creators’ case, particularly given the current state of the global economy, is to stress the economic value of their industry, particularly in developing countries, experts said. The World Intellectual Property Organization, for example, pointed out that the copyright industry is responsible for roughly 6 percent of a developing economy.
”When you bring those figures to the attention of the government of developing countries, they begin to see it differently,” said WIPO Deputy Director General Michael Keplinger. “There’s something in it for them … it’s not just something for America and the Europeans and the Japanese.”"
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/06/11/copyright-holders-acknowledge-losing-battle-for-public-consciousness-at-world-copyright-summit/
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
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
"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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)