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

Google Books Settlement: Key Players Comment; Huffington Post, 11/23/09

Huffington Post; Google Books Settlement: Key Players Comment:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/google-books-settlement-k_n_361393.html

Google Books Row Explained; stuff.co.nz, 11/23/09

Claire Mcentee, Dominion Post, via stuff.co.nz; Google Books Row Explained:

"Kiwi authors and publishers could still strike a deal with Google to sell digital copies of books, but say any arrangement with the internet search giant will be on their terms.

New Zealand has been left out of a proposed deal that will see Google scan and sell digital versions of out-of-print copyright protected books to people in the United States and give authors and publishers a cut of the proceeds."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3086310/Google-books-row-explained

New Google Book Settlement Tries To Appease Worries; Tech Dirt, 11/16/09

Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; New Google Book Settlement Tries To Appease Worries:

"Separately, a lot of the focus on this new agreement, as with the old agreement, is over how Google treats orphan works. Again, I have to admit that I think most people are making a much bigger deal of this than it warrants. The orphan works stuff really covers a very small number of works. And giving rightsholders ten years to claim their rights seems more than adequate to me. I just don't see what the big deal is here. The real issue is that we have orphan works at all. Under the old (more sensible) copyright regime, you actually had to proactively declare your copyright interest. The only reason we have orphan works at all is that we got rid of such a system in the ongoing effort of copyright maximalists to wipe out the public domain.

Anyway, I think this is all something of a sideshow. I still stand by my original feeling towards the settlement, which is that I'm upset anyone felt it was necessary at all. Google had a strong fair use claim that I would have liked to have seen taken all the way through the courts. And, of course, this settlement really has nothing at all to do with the main issue of the lawsuit (that fair use question) and is really a debate over a separate issue: how to take the books Google scans and trying to turn them into a "book store" rather than more of a "library." And, in doing so, the important fair use question gets completely buried -- which I find unfortunate."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1842336943.shtml

NZ left out of revised $US125m Google Books deal; National Business Review, 11/16/09

Chris Keall, National Business Review; NZ left out of revised $US125m Google Books deal:

"Google has narrowed the scope of its $US125 million settlement with publishers of out-of-print titles released as free e-books through its ad-funded Book Search service.

The settlement, originally announced in October last year, will now only cover books that are registered with the US copyright office, or originally published in the UK, Canada or Australia.
The revised deal came after pressure from the US Department of Justice. The European Union had also been circling.

In a statement released soon after the revised deal was announced late Saturday New Zealand time, Google said the deal was narrowed to the four countries “which share a common legal heritage and similar book industry practices.”

Martin Taylor, director of Auckland publisher Addenda and founder of the Digital Publishing Forum, had an alternative definition.

“The revised terms are notable for the exclusion of works from many countries that objected to its original settlement proposal,” said Mr Taylor in a blog post over the weekend.

“Interestingly, many of those from countries excluded from the deal might now be asking themselves, ‘Why can’t we be in, too?’ Perhaps this is part of the clever psychology of the deal, creating an apparent ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ so that the excluded parties feel obliged to open negotiations with Google,” added Mr Taylor."

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-left-out-revised-us125m-google-books-deal-114962

[Court Document] Revised Google Book Search settlement, submitted to court 11/14/09

[Court Document, 377 pages] Revised Google Book Search settlement, submitted to court by Google, AAP, and Authors Guild, 11/14/09:

http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/amended_settlement_redline.pdf

Closing chapter of Google Books saga near; CNet, 11/09/09

Tom Krazit, CNet; Closing chapter of Google Books saga near:

"Every book project is a series of deadlines. Google's faces an important one Monday.

Google and representatives for author and publisher groups are due to submit a revised Google Book Search settlement in New York federal court Monday. It's been a long year since they first reached a settlement they deemed "historic," which would have granted Google unique rights to continue scanning out-of-print yet copyright-protected books as it builds out a digital library containing more than 10 million books, which also includes public domain works as well as books scanned through partnerships with publishers.

However, opposition to the settlement grew in the months following its release, and the intervention of the Department of Justice in September forced the parties to rework the settlement. Google has sought to downplay the changes that are in the works, but the filing will showcase just how much Google and author groups have had to bend in order to satisfy the government.

It's not clear how widespread the changes will be. The Justice Department objected to several items it found "serious in isolation, and, taken together, raise cause for concern." The principal objection seemed to concern the Books Rights Registry, a nonprofit organization set up by Google and the author groups to distribute royalty payments from Google Book Search to authors. The group's directors will be picked by the parties, and while Google insists that anyone else who wants to scan out-of-print books can negotiate with the Registry, some objectors are concerned that they won't be able to get the same deal that Google has received.

The main problem, however, is that the settlement effectively sets copyright law precedent by affirming Google's position that it was, and is, allowed to scan books that are out of print but protected by copyright under fair-use rights. This does not sit well with many, and ahead of the revised settlement's release, Google's loudest opponents made their case that Google and author groups should defer to Congress on this issue.

"Congress must retain the exclusive authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to set copyright policy," declared the Open Book Alliance, a group that includes the Internet Archive, Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo.

The revised settlement is expected to be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York late on Monday. It's believed that Judge Denny Chin will order some sort of waiting period for interested parties to review the settlement before holding a final hearing, perhaps in early 2010."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10392768-2.html