Diane Mapes via MSNBC.com; Steal this story? Beware Net’s plagiarism ‘cops’:
Increasing number of sites are on the lookout for stolen words, phrases
"There’s even been a lawsuit (which iParadigms won in 2008) involving four high school students who claimed submitting their homework to TurnItIn was a violation of copyright law.
Today’s digital world presents new and difficult challenges, though, says Povejsil of iParadigms.
“There’s a whole new reality that the digital world has brought us to, and kids have a very different perception of things than the people who learned about fair use and plagiarism in a print world,” she says.
“One third of teenagers don’t believe that downloading a paper from the Internet is a serious offense. To them, copying text from a Web site is either a minor offense or it’s not cheating at all. That’s the world we find ourselves in and educators find themselves in.” "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32657885
Friday, September 11, 2009
Annie Leibovitz buys back copyright to her photos; Yahoo, 9/11/09
Ula Ilnytzky, Associated Press, via Yahoo; Annie Leibovitz buys back copyright to her photos:
"Annie Leibovitz has won an extension on a $24 million loan in a financial dispute that threatened her rights to her famous images, the two sides said in a joint statement Friday.
Leibovitz and the company, Art Capital Group, said the 59-year-old photographer had been given more time to repay the loan. The loan's deadline passed on Tuesday, but both parties had continued to work to try to resolve the dispute. Neither party would specify the length of the extension...
Last year, Leibovitz put up as collateral three Manhattan townhouses, an upstate New York property and the copyright to every picture she has ever taken — or will take — to secure the loan."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_en_ot/us_annie_leibovitz
"Annie Leibovitz has won an extension on a $24 million loan in a financial dispute that threatened her rights to her famous images, the two sides said in a joint statement Friday.
Leibovitz and the company, Art Capital Group, said the 59-year-old photographer had been given more time to repay the loan. The loan's deadline passed on Tuesday, but both parties had continued to work to try to resolve the dispute. Neither party would specify the length of the extension...
Last year, Leibovitz put up as collateral three Manhattan townhouses, an upstate New York property and the copyright to every picture she has ever taken — or will take — to secure the loan."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_en_ot/us_annie_leibovitz
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Record companies sue 'Ellen' show over copyrights; Associated Press, 9/10/09
Travis Loller via Associated Press; Record companies sue 'Ellen' show over copyrights:
"Some of the world's largest recording companies are suing "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," claiming producers violated their copyrights by playing more than 1,000 songs without permission.
Many of the songs were played during the show's popular dance segment.
According to the suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville, when representatives of the recording companies asked defendants why they hadn't obtained licenses to use the songs, defendants said they didn't "roll that way.""
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBroepPZm4A-gNwq7jukIbC6f4GAD9AKNAPG4
"Some of the world's largest recording companies are suing "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," claiming producers violated their copyrights by playing more than 1,000 songs without permission.
Many of the songs were played during the show's popular dance segment.
According to the suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville, when representatives of the recording companies asked defendants why they hadn't obtained licenses to use the songs, defendants said they didn't "roll that way.""
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBroepPZm4A-gNwq7jukIbC6f4GAD9AKNAPG4
Open Book Alliance Releases 'Facts vs. Fiction About the Google Book Settlement'; Reuters, 9/10/09
Reuters; Open Book Alliance Releases 'Facts vs. Fiction About the Google Book Settlement':
Open Book Alliance Releases 'Facts vs. Fiction About the Google Book Settlement'; Urges House Judiciary Committee to Explore These Seven CrucialTopics
""There's been a lot of questions about the nature of this settlement, and, unfortunately, there remains some inaccurate information out there," said Peter Brantley, director, Internet Archive and co-chair of the Open Book Alliance. "We sincerely hope that today's hearing helps clarify some of the facts about the settlement, and we encourage the members of the House Judiciary Committee to explore these areas in its questioning of Google and its partners.""
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS113129+10-Sep-2009+PRN20090910
Open Book Alliance Releases 'Facts vs. Fiction About the Google Book Settlement'; Urges House Judiciary Committee to Explore These Seven CrucialTopics
""There's been a lot of questions about the nature of this settlement, and, unfortunately, there remains some inaccurate information out there," said Peter Brantley, director, Internet Archive and co-chair of the Open Book Alliance. "We sincerely hope that today's hearing helps clarify some of the facts about the settlement, and we encourage the members of the House Judiciary Committee to explore these areas in its questioning of Google and its partners.""
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS113129+10-Sep-2009+PRN20090910
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Europe's Heated Reaction to Google Books; Business Week, 9/9/09
Honor Mahony via Business Week; Europe's Heated Reaction to Google Books:
Publishers, booksellers, and authors are upset at the copyright, privacy, and censorship implications of Google's plan to digitize millions of books
"The Brussels hearing was organised after EU member states, particularly France and Germany, raised concerns about the Google's digital library, which is also due for a final hearing by the U.S. justice department in October.
Europe's various copyright laws make it impossible for it to have a similar settlement, but a statement by the commission on Monday called for a legislative framework that "paves the way for a rapid roll out of services, similar to those made possible in the U.S. by the recent settlement, to European consumers.""
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2009/gb2009099_774179.htm
Publishers, booksellers, and authors are upset at the copyright, privacy, and censorship implications of Google's plan to digitize millions of books
"The Brussels hearing was organised after EU member states, particularly France and Germany, raised concerns about the Google's digital library, which is also due for a final hearing by the U.S. justice department in October.
Europe's various copyright laws make it impossible for it to have a similar settlement, but a statement by the commission on Monday called for a legislative framework that "paves the way for a rapid roll out of services, similar to those made possible in the U.S. by the recent settlement, to European consumers.""
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2009/gb2009099_774179.htm
Congress to Weigh Google Books Settlement; New York Times, 9/9/09
Miguel Helft via New York Times; Congress to Weigh Google Books Settlement:
"On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled Competition and Commerce in Digital Books that will be all about the landmark settlement of the class action filed by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google in 2005.
Although the hearing is likely to attract some attention, the voice that settlement watchers are most eager to hear is that of the Justice Department, whose lawyers are investigating whether the agreement violates antitrust law. The Justice Department has until Sept. 18 to file its views with the court.
The debate Thursday is certain to be lively, with Google’s top lawyer, David Drummond, squaring off against Amazon’s top public policy executive, Paul Misener. Other speakers include Paul Aiken of the Authors Guild, Marc Mauer of the National Federation of the Blind and David Balto of the Center for American Progress, who support the deal.
Others witnesses are likely to cast a more skeptical eye on the agreement, including John Simpson of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit that has opposed the agreement; Randall Picker, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School who has raised antitrust concerns; and Marybeth Peters, the head of the United States Copyright Office, who has also raised questions about the deal."
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/congress-to-weigh-google-books-settlement/?hpw
"On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled Competition and Commerce in Digital Books that will be all about the landmark settlement of the class action filed by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google in 2005.
Although the hearing is likely to attract some attention, the voice that settlement watchers are most eager to hear is that of the Justice Department, whose lawyers are investigating whether the agreement violates antitrust law. The Justice Department has until Sept. 18 to file its views with the court.
The debate Thursday is certain to be lively, with Google’s top lawyer, David Drummond, squaring off against Amazon’s top public policy executive, Paul Misener. Other speakers include Paul Aiken of the Authors Guild, Marc Mauer of the National Federation of the Blind and David Balto of the Center for American Progress, who support the deal.
Others witnesses are likely to cast a more skeptical eye on the agreement, including John Simpson of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit that has opposed the agreement; Randall Picker, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School who has raised antitrust concerns; and Marybeth Peters, the head of the United States Copyright Office, who has also raised questions about the deal."
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/congress-to-weigh-google-books-settlement/?hpw
Resistance to Google book deal builds as Google woos Europe; Ars Technica, 9/8/09
John Timmer via Ars Technica; Resistance to Google book deal builds as Google woos Europe:
Last week saw a flurry of filings as the deadline passed for parties to formally voice their displeasure or support for Google's settlement with book authors and publishers. Now, the action seems to have shifted to Europe, which got some significant concessions from the search giant.
"It's obvious that the concerns about, and outright resistance to, the original settlement have been extensive, and Google is willing to make some significant concessions to try to get the deal to go through. What's less obvious is whether these concessions will be formally made part of the legal settlement and, if so, whether outside parties will have another opportunity to comment on the revisions. The scheduled decision is now less than a month away, but it looks like it's going to be an extremely busy month for everyone involved."
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/09/resistance-to-book-deal-builds-as-google-woos-europe.ars
Last week saw a flurry of filings as the deadline passed for parties to formally voice their displeasure or support for Google's settlement with book authors and publishers. Now, the action seems to have shifted to Europe, which got some significant concessions from the search giant.
"It's obvious that the concerns about, and outright resistance to, the original settlement have been extensive, and Google is willing to make some significant concessions to try to get the deal to go through. What's less obvious is whether these concessions will be formally made part of the legal settlement and, if so, whether outside parties will have another opportunity to comment on the revisions. The scheduled decision is now less than a month away, but it looks like it's going to be an extremely busy month for everyone involved."
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/09/resistance-to-book-deal-builds-as-google-woos-europe.ars
Microsoft calls Google Books deal 'misuse' of the law; Guardian, 9/9/09
Bobbie Johnson via Guardian; Microsoft calls Google Books deal 'misuse' of the law:
"Google's battle to digitise millions of copyrighted books has taken another blow, after rival technology giant Microsoft lodged a brief with an American court that called the proposals "illegitimate".
In the filing delivered to the southern district court of New York - which is examining the proposed $125m deal that would give Google the right to digitise millions of in-copyright books - Microsoft called the scheme "an unprecedented misuse of the judicial system"...
Echoing arguments made by other critics, including Amazon and European regulators, the Seattle software giant added a scathing rebuttal of Google's deal.
"A class action settlement is the wrong mechanism, this court is the wrong venue and monopolisation is the wrong means to carry out the worthy goal of digitising and increasing the accessibility of books.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/09/google-books-microsoft
"Google's battle to digitise millions of copyrighted books has taken another blow, after rival technology giant Microsoft lodged a brief with an American court that called the proposals "illegitimate".
In the filing delivered to the southern district court of New York - which is examining the proposed $125m deal that would give Google the right to digitise millions of in-copyright books - Microsoft called the scheme "an unprecedented misuse of the judicial system"...
Echoing arguments made by other critics, including Amazon and European regulators, the Seattle software giant added a scathing rebuttal of Google's deal.
"A class action settlement is the wrong mechanism, this court is the wrong venue and monopolisation is the wrong means to carry out the worthy goal of digitising and increasing the accessibility of books.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/09/google-books-microsoft
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Photographer Annie Leibovitz's loan repayment due; Yahoo, 9/8/09
Ula Ilnytzky, Associated Press, via Yahoo; Photographer Annie Leibovitz's loan repayment due:
"Celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz risks losing the copyright to her images — and her entire life's work — if she doesn't pay back a $24 million loan due Tuesday.
The lender, Art Capital Group, sued Leibovitz in July claiming she breached an agreement that authorized it to act as the agent in the sale of her photography and real estate.
Leibovitz spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said Tuesday that the photographer was working to "resolve the situation.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_en_ot/us_annie_leibovitz
"Celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz risks losing the copyright to her images — and her entire life's work — if she doesn't pay back a $24 million loan due Tuesday.
The lender, Art Capital Group, sued Leibovitz in July claiming she breached an agreement that authorized it to act as the agent in the sale of her photography and real estate.
Leibovitz spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said Tuesday that the photographer was working to "resolve the situation.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_en_ot/us_annie_leibovitz
11th-Hour Filings Oppose Google’s Book Settlement; New York Times, 9/8/09
Miguel Helft via New York Times; 11th-Hour Filings Oppose Google’s Book Settlement:
"“Legal scholars say that Judge Chin will have to address not only whether the settlement is fair to the authors, publishers and rights holders covered by it, but also whether it benefits the public at large.
“The number and quality of opposition filings is very unusual,” said Jay Tidmarsh, a professor of law at Notre Dame Law School. “The court is going to have to look at the public interest in the settlement.”
The agreement, which would bring millions of rarely seen books online, has clear benefits to readers and authors. But scholars say the judge is likely to weigh those benefits against arguments that the settlement would limit competition. Opponents say it would give Google a quasi-exclusive license to profit from millions of out-of-print books and create a consortium that would have power to set prices for digital books. Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers have vigorously disputed those claims, but the claims are being investigated by the Justice Department...
If the judge has some significant concerns, it is much more likely that he would invite the parties to address those concerns rather than reject the agreement,” said Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. Professor Gavil said that Judge Chin was likely to give special consideration to the opinion of the Justice Department, which has until Sept. 18 to make its views known. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 7...
Google should be ordered to license the database with all attendant rights to a number of competitors, under the supervision of the Justice Department,” Mr. Reback wrote in the brief. He traced the birth of Silicon Valley to a similar “compulsory license” mandated by the Justice Department. “Silicon Valley exists precisely because the Antitrust Division ordered AT&T to license its key invention, the transistor, for nominal payments,” he wrote.
Defenders of the agreement say the antitrust concerns are unfounded, and argue that others besides Google could obtain similar licenses without any mandates from the court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/technology/internet/09google.html?_r=1&hpw
"“Legal scholars say that Judge Chin will have to address not only whether the settlement is fair to the authors, publishers and rights holders covered by it, but also whether it benefits the public at large.
“The number and quality of opposition filings is very unusual,” said Jay Tidmarsh, a professor of law at Notre Dame Law School. “The court is going to have to look at the public interest in the settlement.”
The agreement, which would bring millions of rarely seen books online, has clear benefits to readers and authors. But scholars say the judge is likely to weigh those benefits against arguments that the settlement would limit competition. Opponents say it would give Google a quasi-exclusive license to profit from millions of out-of-print books and create a consortium that would have power to set prices for digital books. Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers have vigorously disputed those claims, but the claims are being investigated by the Justice Department...
If the judge has some significant concerns, it is much more likely that he would invite the parties to address those concerns rather than reject the agreement,” said Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. Professor Gavil said that Judge Chin was likely to give special consideration to the opinion of the Justice Department, which has until Sept. 18 to make its views known. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 7...
Google should be ordered to license the database with all attendant rights to a number of competitors, under the supervision of the Justice Department,” Mr. Reback wrote in the brief. He traced the birth of Silicon Valley to a similar “compulsory license” mandated by the Justice Department. “Silicon Valley exists precisely because the Antitrust Division ordered AT&T to license its key invention, the transistor, for nominal payments,” he wrote.
Defenders of the agreement say the antitrust concerns are unfounded, and argue that others besides Google could obtain similar licenses without any mandates from the court."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/technology/internet/09google.html?_r=1&hpw
Legal arguments pan, praise Google's book deal; Associated Press, 9/8/09
Michael Liedtke via Associated Press; Legal arguments pan, praise Google's book deal:
"Tuesday's legal sparring came on the deadline for written arguments about a $125 million settlement that would entrust Google with a digital database containing millions of copyright-protected books, including titles no longer being published.
But at least one more key document is expected before U.S. District Judge Denny Chin holds an Oct. 7 hearing in New York to review the settlement. The Justice Department has until Sept. 18 to file its brief, which may provide some inkling on whether antitrust regulators have determined if the deal would hurt competition.
The settlement, reached last October, has raised the specter of Google becoming even more powerful than it already has become as the owner of the Internet's most popular search engine and most lucrative advertising network.
Those concerns represented the crux of a 32-page brief written by Silicon Valley attorney Gary Reback, who helped the Justice Department pursue an antitrust case against Microsoft's bundling of personal computer software in the 1990s.
Reback filed the brief Tuesday on behalf of the Open Book Alliance, which includes Microsoft, Yahoo, Internet bookseller Amazon.com Inc., other companies and nonprofit organizations. Microsoft and Yahoo, which compete with Google in search, also filed separate arguments; Amazon submitted its protest last week.
The alliance contends Google conspired with the author and publishing groups that sued the Mountain View-based company to make it more difficult for competitors to create similar indexes of digital books. The alliance contends that competitive barriers would empower Google, authors and publishers to the raise prices of digital books well above the current standard of about $10 per volume.
"The publishing industry desperately wants to raise the retail price point for digital books," Reback wrote for the alliance. "The book settlement permits them to achieve that by working with Google.""
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9AJEG6O2
"Tuesday's legal sparring came on the deadline for written arguments about a $125 million settlement that would entrust Google with a digital database containing millions of copyright-protected books, including titles no longer being published.
But at least one more key document is expected before U.S. District Judge Denny Chin holds an Oct. 7 hearing in New York to review the settlement. The Justice Department has until Sept. 18 to file its brief, which may provide some inkling on whether antitrust regulators have determined if the deal would hurt competition.
The settlement, reached last October, has raised the specter of Google becoming even more powerful than it already has become as the owner of the Internet's most popular search engine and most lucrative advertising network.
Those concerns represented the crux of a 32-page brief written by Silicon Valley attorney Gary Reback, who helped the Justice Department pursue an antitrust case against Microsoft's bundling of personal computer software in the 1990s.
Reback filed the brief Tuesday on behalf of the Open Book Alliance, which includes Microsoft, Yahoo, Internet bookseller Amazon.com Inc., other companies and nonprofit organizations. Microsoft and Yahoo, which compete with Google in search, also filed separate arguments; Amazon submitted its protest last week.
The alliance contends Google conspired with the author and publishing groups that sued the Mountain View-based company to make it more difficult for competitors to create similar indexes of digital books. The alliance contends that competitive barriers would empower Google, authors and publishers to the raise prices of digital books well above the current standard of about $10 per volume.
"The publishing industry desperately wants to raise the retail price point for digital books," Reback wrote for the alliance. "The book settlement permits them to achieve that by working with Google.""
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9AJEG6O2
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
Google Book Project Criticized by Germany, Publishers; Bloomberg, 9/7/09
Stephanie Bodoni and Matthew Newman via Bloomberg; Google Book Project Criticized by Germany, Publishers:
"Google Inc.’s book scanning project was criticized by a group of authors, publishers and the German government, who complained that the plan would give the company too much control over out-of-print books.
The complaints were raised at a European Union hearing today in Brussels that is reviewing how a $125 million settlement between Google and U.S. publishers will affect the EU. A group representing Google rivals including Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo! Inc. said the accord would create a cartel involving thousands of publishers."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=awxRciDFpzvc
"Google Inc.’s book scanning project was criticized by a group of authors, publishers and the German government, who complained that the plan would give the company too much control over out-of-print books.
The complaints were raised at a European Union hearing today in Brussels that is reviewing how a $125 million settlement between Google and U.S. publishers will affect the EU. A group representing Google rivals including Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo! Inc. said the accord would create a cartel involving thousands of publishers."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=awxRciDFpzvc
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Writers want EU to follow US on Google books deal; New Europe, 9/6/09
New Europe; Writers want EU to follow US on Google books deal:
"European writers should follow the US lead and set up a Books Rights Registry in order to profit from the Internet and the rapidly-growing market for electronic books, an American best-selling author said. James Gleick, best known for his books explaining the intricacies of Chaos Theory, said such a registry would help protect their copyright and could even turn their out-of-print tomes into money- makers. “Authors in Europe need to ensure their rights are protected and that any money is shared out among them,” said Gleick, who is also a board member of the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers."
http://www.neurope.eu/articles/95967.php
"European writers should follow the US lead and set up a Books Rights Registry in order to profit from the Internet and the rapidly-growing market for electronic books, an American best-selling author said. James Gleick, best known for his books explaining the intricacies of Chaos Theory, said such a registry would help protect their copyright and could even turn their out-of-print tomes into money- makers. “Authors in Europe need to ensure their rights are protected and that any money is shared out among them,” said Gleick, who is also a board member of the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers."
http://www.neurope.eu/articles/95967.php
Op-Ed: Google's big book case; Economist, 9/3/09
Op-Ed: Economist; Google's big book case:
The internet giant’s plan to create a vast digital library should be given a green light
"TO ITS opponents, it is a brazen attempt by a crafty monopolist to lock up some of the world’s most valuable intellectual property. To its fans, it is a laudable effort by a publicly minded company to unlock a treasure trove of hidden knowledge. Next month an American court will hold a hearing on an agreement, signed last year by Google and representatives of authors and publishers, to make millions of books in America searchable online. The case has stirred up passions, conflict and conspiracy theories worthy of a literary blockbuster...
Even critics recognise that the proposed deal offers huge public benefits. By helping to resolve the legal status of many texts subject to absurdly long copyright periods and murky ownership, it will make millions of books more accessible than ever before. Researchers from Manhattan to Mumbai will gain instant access to volumes that would otherwise languish in obscurity. Libraries will be able to offer users access to information far beyond their physical book stacks. And authors and publishers will be able to cash in on long-neglected works.
But critics maintain that the risks outweigh the benefits. They claim it gives Google a dangerous monopoly over digital sales of certain books. And they argue that Google and the registry could act as a cartel and raise the cost of institutional subscriptions to outrageous levels.
Lost and found
The first fear is overdone. True, the agreement gives Google the exclusive right to scan “orphan” texts—titles for which the copyright owner’s identity or location is unknown. But these books are a relatively small part of the market, and most are unlikely to be of much value. If any are, their appearance in Google’s archives is likely to bring long-lost copyright owners out of the woodwork to claim the proceeds. They can then sell the digital rights to their books to firms other than Google, increasing competition.
The critics’ second charge is more worrying. In effect, the agreement creates a legally sanctioned cartel for digital-book rights that could artificially inflate the price of library subscriptions. In some other areas, such as the music industry, such copyright registries are required to sign formal pledges that they will not abuse their dominant positions in this way. The Google agreement contains no such promise.
Yet that is not a reason to reject it. After all, Google has a big economic incentive to ensure that its online library is widely available: it makes most of its money from search advertising, so the more people that use its services, including the online book archive, the better. It also has a legal incentive to watch its step. The agreement stipulates that institutional subscription prices must be low enough to ensure that the public has “broad access” to digital books, while at the same time earning market rates for copyright owners. So if lots of libraries refuse to sign up for Google’s service because it is too costly, the company could be slapped with a lawsuit.
Admittedly, such safeguards are not watertight and other antitrust concerns could surface over time in this brave new digital world. But the theoretical dangers these pose should be weighed against the very real and substantial benefits that a comprehensive digital library will create. That is why the court should approve the Google agreement, while at the same time giving stern warning to its signatories that they will be subject to intense regulatory scrutiny for the foreseeable future. If the court rejects the deal, much potentially useful information will remain, quite literally, a closed book."
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14363287
The internet giant’s plan to create a vast digital library should be given a green light
"TO ITS opponents, it is a brazen attempt by a crafty monopolist to lock up some of the world’s most valuable intellectual property. To its fans, it is a laudable effort by a publicly minded company to unlock a treasure trove of hidden knowledge. Next month an American court will hold a hearing on an agreement, signed last year by Google and representatives of authors and publishers, to make millions of books in America searchable online. The case has stirred up passions, conflict and conspiracy theories worthy of a literary blockbuster...
Even critics recognise that the proposed deal offers huge public benefits. By helping to resolve the legal status of many texts subject to absurdly long copyright periods and murky ownership, it will make millions of books more accessible than ever before. Researchers from Manhattan to Mumbai will gain instant access to volumes that would otherwise languish in obscurity. Libraries will be able to offer users access to information far beyond their physical book stacks. And authors and publishers will be able to cash in on long-neglected works.
But critics maintain that the risks outweigh the benefits. They claim it gives Google a dangerous monopoly over digital sales of certain books. And they argue that Google and the registry could act as a cartel and raise the cost of institutional subscriptions to outrageous levels.
Lost and found
The first fear is overdone. True, the agreement gives Google the exclusive right to scan “orphan” texts—titles for which the copyright owner’s identity or location is unknown. But these books are a relatively small part of the market, and most are unlikely to be of much value. If any are, their appearance in Google’s archives is likely to bring long-lost copyright owners out of the woodwork to claim the proceeds. They can then sell the digital rights to their books to firms other than Google, increasing competition.
The critics’ second charge is more worrying. In effect, the agreement creates a legally sanctioned cartel for digital-book rights that could artificially inflate the price of library subscriptions. In some other areas, such as the music industry, such copyright registries are required to sign formal pledges that they will not abuse their dominant positions in this way. The Google agreement contains no such promise.
Yet that is not a reason to reject it. After all, Google has a big economic incentive to ensure that its online library is widely available: it makes most of its money from search advertising, so the more people that use its services, including the online book archive, the better. It also has a legal incentive to watch its step. The agreement stipulates that institutional subscription prices must be low enough to ensure that the public has “broad access” to digital books, while at the same time earning market rates for copyright owners. So if lots of libraries refuse to sign up for Google’s service because it is too costly, the company could be slapped with a lawsuit.
Admittedly, such safeguards are not watertight and other antitrust concerns could surface over time in this brave new digital world. But the theoretical dangers these pose should be weighed against the very real and substantial benefits that a comprehensive digital library will create. That is why the court should approve the Google agreement, while at the same time giving stern warning to its signatories that they will be subject to intense regulatory scrutiny for the foreseeable future. If the court rejects the deal, much potentially useful information will remain, quite literally, a closed book."
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14363287
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
Saturday, September 5, 2009
The Cookie Before Dinner; Open Book Aliance, 8/31/09
Peter Brantley via Open Book Alliance; The Cookie Before Dinner:
"Last Friday, I was fortunate to participate in an event on the Google Book settlement and the Future of Information Access. Hosted by the UC Berkeley School of Information, the event brought together a couple hundred academic, legal, and industry minds to discuss the promise and the pitfalls of the controversial settlement proposal between Google, the Authors’ Guild, and the Association of American Publishers.
My takeaway from the panels and hallway conversations is that the academic and scholarly community – among the parties who would be most affected by this settlement – are fairly critical of the settlement proposal in its current form.
Four issues in particular kept cropping up during the panels – the utility of the service that Google says it will deliver; the diminished competition that will occur as a result of the de facto exclusivity offered by the settlement; significant privacy issues that are yet unanswered by Google; and the quality of the books and their descriptive metadata that Google intends to offer.
On the last point, Geoff Nunberg from the School of Information gave what may have been the most interesting and entertaining presentation of the day, highlighting a sampling of the errors in Google’s book scanning efforts to date. In his words, “GBS (Google Book Settlement) metadata are awful.”
Media coverage of the event highlighted the point that many in the academic community seem to agree on – while the digitization of books can offer tremendous benefits to all, there are better, fairer ways to go about making that future a reality. We don’t have to grab the cookie that’s offered to us before dinner."
http://www.openbookalliance.org/2009/08/the-cookie-before-dinner/
"Last Friday, I was fortunate to participate in an event on the Google Book settlement and the Future of Information Access. Hosted by the UC Berkeley School of Information, the event brought together a couple hundred academic, legal, and industry minds to discuss the promise and the pitfalls of the controversial settlement proposal between Google, the Authors’ Guild, and the Association of American Publishers.
My takeaway from the panels and hallway conversations is that the academic and scholarly community – among the parties who would be most affected by this settlement – are fairly critical of the settlement proposal in its current form.
Four issues in particular kept cropping up during the panels – the utility of the service that Google says it will deliver; the diminished competition that will occur as a result of the de facto exclusivity offered by the settlement; significant privacy issues that are yet unanswered by Google; and the quality of the books and their descriptive metadata that Google intends to offer.
On the last point, Geoff Nunberg from the School of Information gave what may have been the most interesting and entertaining presentation of the day, highlighting a sampling of the errors in Google’s book scanning efforts to date. In his words, “GBS (Google Book Settlement) metadata are awful.”
Media coverage of the event highlighted the point that many in the academic community seem to agree on – while the digitization of books can offer tremendous benefits to all, there are better, fairer ways to go about making that future a reality. We don’t have to grab the cookie that’s offered to us before dinner."
http://www.openbookalliance.org/2009/08/the-cookie-before-dinner/
Google books deal battle heats up; BBC News, 9/4/09
Maggie Shiels via BBC News; Google books deal battle heats up:
"The most vocal critics of the deal have largely banded together to form the Open Book Alliance. It was set up by the non-profit Internet Archive, which has its own book-scanning project and has to date digitised 500,000 books.
"Just as Gutenberg's invention of the printing press more than 700 years ago ushered in a new era of knowledge sharing, the mass digitisation of books promises to revolutionise how we read and discover books," said Peter Brantley of the alliance.
"But a digital library controlled by a single company and small group of publishers would inevitably lead to higher prices and subpar services for consumers, libraries, scholars and students."...
Many believe the issue of rights over out-of-print books would best be solved by legislation and not the courts.
"It is never a good thing for private parties to make deals for the public good," said Martin Manley, the founder of Alibris.com, an online store which sells used, rare and out-of-print books.
"The public good is meant to be solved by regulators who are somewhat accountable and by legislators who are wholly accountable," Mr Manley told BBC News."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8237271.stm
"The most vocal critics of the deal have largely banded together to form the Open Book Alliance. It was set up by the non-profit Internet Archive, which has its own book-scanning project and has to date digitised 500,000 books.
"Just as Gutenberg's invention of the printing press more than 700 years ago ushered in a new era of knowledge sharing, the mass digitisation of books promises to revolutionise how we read and discover books," said Peter Brantley of the alliance.
"But a digital library controlled by a single company and small group of publishers would inevitably lead to higher prices and subpar services for consumers, libraries, scholars and students."...
Many believe the issue of rights over out-of-print books would best be solved by legislation and not the courts.
"It is never a good thing for private parties to make deals for the public good," said Martin Manley, the founder of Alibris.com, an online store which sells used, rare and out-of-print books.
"The public good is meant to be solved by regulators who are somewhat accountable and by legislators who are wholly accountable," Mr Manley told BBC News."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8237271.stm
Privacy Group Asks to Join Google Book Lawsuit As Deadline Approaches; Wired.com, 9/4/09
Ryan Singel via Wired.com; Privacy Group Asks to Join Google Book Lawsuit As Deadline Approaches:
"A key privacy group is seeking to intervene in the ongoing copyright lawsuit over Google’s plan to build the library and bookstore of the future, arguing that reader privacy is at risk no matter how much Google promises to have a good privacy policy.
EPIC, or the Electronic Privacy Information Center, asked federal court judge Denny Chin on Friday to allow it to formally intervene on behalf of readers’ privacy interests in the suit pitting Google against the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. The motion comes just a day after Google finally released a draft privacy policy for the Book Search program, bowing to pressure (.pdf) from the FTC.
Epic president Marc Rotenberg, a privacy policy enforcement expert, says privacy policies exist mainly to let companies to do what they want to with your data and that they don’t protect users from prying law enforcement agencies.
“Even if Google would write it in blood, there is still the obvious problem that when the government comes knocking the policy doesn’t mean anything,” Rotenberg said.
That’s why the judge in the case needs to make privacy rules part of the settlement, he argues.
“If through the settlement, you limited the collection of some reader data, then when the government comes, the data is just not there,” he said...
Friday was supposed to be the final deadline for authors to opt-out of the settlement or for outsiders to register their support or dissent with the court. But due to a problem with the Manhattan federal court’s computers, the deadline was be extended until Tuesday."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/privacy-group-asks-to-join-google-book-lawsuit-as-deadline-approaches/
"A key privacy group is seeking to intervene in the ongoing copyright lawsuit over Google’s plan to build the library and bookstore of the future, arguing that reader privacy is at risk no matter how much Google promises to have a good privacy policy.
EPIC, or the Electronic Privacy Information Center, asked federal court judge Denny Chin on Friday to allow it to formally intervene on behalf of readers’ privacy interests in the suit pitting Google against the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. The motion comes just a day after Google finally released a draft privacy policy for the Book Search program, bowing to pressure (.pdf) from the FTC.
Epic president Marc Rotenberg, a privacy policy enforcement expert, says privacy policies exist mainly to let companies to do what they want to with your data and that they don’t protect users from prying law enforcement agencies.
“Even if Google would write it in blood, there is still the obvious problem that when the government comes knocking the policy doesn’t mean anything,” Rotenberg said.
That’s why the judge in the case needs to make privacy rules part of the settlement, he argues.
“If through the settlement, you limited the collection of some reader data, then when the government comes, the data is just not there,” he said...
Friday was supposed to be the final deadline for authors to opt-out of the settlement or for outsiders to register their support or dissent with the court. But due to a problem with the Manhattan federal court’s computers, the deadline was be extended until Tuesday."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/privacy-group-asks-to-join-google-book-lawsuit-as-deadline-approaches/
Google brought to book over digital library; Times, 9/5/09
Mike Harvey via Times; Google brought to book over digital library:
"A US district judge named Denny Chin is on the verge of becoming one of the most important men in the history of publishing. On October 7 in a New York courtroom he will preside over a “fairness hearing” for a deal between Google and US publishers and authors to put millions of books online.
The 55-year-old Hong Kong-born judge presided over the trial of Bernard Madoff, sentencing the fraudster to 150 years in prison. The Google books settlement case is likely to send shockwaves even further afield.
Google yesterday launched a staunch defence of its plans to become the world’s librarian and bookseller. The internet giant is in the middle of a project to scan and index the world’s literary heritage. It has already digitised more than 10 million volumes in more than 100 languages and has agreements with libraries around the world to scan millions more.
Google says that the project will make a treasure trove of forgotten and out-of-print books available to anyone with an internet connection. Critics say that mankind’s “last library” should not be in the hands of a commercial enterprise."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6822739.ece
"A US district judge named Denny Chin is on the verge of becoming one of the most important men in the history of publishing. On October 7 in a New York courtroom he will preside over a “fairness hearing” for a deal between Google and US publishers and authors to put millions of books online.
The 55-year-old Hong Kong-born judge presided over the trial of Bernard Madoff, sentencing the fraudster to 150 years in prison. The Google books settlement case is likely to send shockwaves even further afield.
Google yesterday launched a staunch defence of its plans to become the world’s librarian and bookseller. The internet giant is in the middle of a project to scan and index the world’s literary heritage. It has already digitised more than 10 million volumes in more than 100 languages and has agreements with libraries around the world to scan millions more.
Google says that the project will make a treasure trove of forgotten and out-of-print books available to anyone with an internet connection. Critics say that mankind’s “last library” should not be in the hands of a commercial enterprise."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6822739.ece
Google Answers Critics with Books Privacy Policy; PC World, 9/4/09
Brennon Slattery via PC World; Google Answers Critics with Books Privacy Policy:
"Google has published a detailed privacy policy surrounding its Google Books settlement.
The policy comes at the behest of the FTC, which wondered what could happen when customers start downloading the millions of scanned books in Google's library. The FTC has "concerns about Google gaining access to vast amounts of consumer data regarding the books consumers search for, purchase, and read."...
Some of the highlights include:
Google will not force a user to log into a Google account when reading pages of books online, browsing through a university's subscription, or viewing through a public library terminal.
Buying a book will require logging in, but users can delete histories of books they have purchased, and credit card companies won't get buying histories.
In addition to specific privacy provisions required by the Books Settlement, every aspect is also beholden to Google's overarching privacy policy.
I imagine Google hopes that its preemptive policy launch will help silence critics, but after the onslaught of opposition from the likes of the Open Book Alliance, the German government, and Amazon, it looks as though the Google Books Settlement has a long, hard road ahead."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/171456/google_answers_critics_with_books_privacy_policy.html
"Google has published a detailed privacy policy surrounding its Google Books settlement.
The policy comes at the behest of the FTC, which wondered what could happen when customers start downloading the millions of scanned books in Google's library. The FTC has "concerns about Google gaining access to vast amounts of consumer data regarding the books consumers search for, purchase, and read."...
Some of the highlights include:
Google will not force a user to log into a Google account when reading pages of books online, browsing through a university's subscription, or viewing through a public library terminal.
Buying a book will require logging in, but users can delete histories of books they have purchased, and credit card companies won't get buying histories.
In addition to specific privacy provisions required by the Books Settlement, every aspect is also beholden to Google's overarching privacy policy.
I imagine Google hopes that its preemptive policy launch will help silence critics, but after the onslaught of opposition from the likes of the Open Book Alliance, the German government, and Amazon, it looks as though the Google Books Settlement has a long, hard road ahead."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/171456/google_answers_critics_with_books_privacy_policy.html
Amazon.com Offers to Replace Copies of Orwell Book; New York Times, 9/5/09
Miguel Helft via New York Times; Amazon.com Offers to Replace Copies of Orwell Book:
"Amazon invited some unflattering literary analogies earlier this summer when it remotely erased unlicensed versions of two George Orwell novels from its customers’ Kindle reading devices.
Jeffrey P. Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, apologized to customers for the deletions in July. And late Thursday, the company tried to put the incident behind it, offering to deliver new copies of “1984” and “Animal Farm” at no charge to affected customers.
Amazon said in an e-mail message to those customers that if they chose to have their digital copies restored, they would be able to see any digital annotations they had made. Those who do not want the books are eligible for an Amazon gift certificate or a check for $30, the company said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/technology/companies/05amazon.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=amazon%20orwell&st=cse
"Amazon invited some unflattering literary analogies earlier this summer when it remotely erased unlicensed versions of two George Orwell novels from its customers’ Kindle reading devices.
Jeffrey P. Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, apologized to customers for the deletions in July. And late Thursday, the company tried to put the incident behind it, offering to deliver new copies of “1984” and “Animal Farm” at no charge to affected customers.
Amazon said in an e-mail message to those customers that if they chose to have their digital copies restored, they would be able to see any digital annotations they had made. Those who do not want the books are eligible for an Amazon gift certificate or a check for $30, the company said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/technology/companies/05amazon.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=amazon%20orwell&st=cse
Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Banned ‘Catcher’ Sequel; New York Times, 9/3/09
Dave Itzkoff via New York Times; Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Banned ‘Catcher’ Sequel:
If Fredrik Colting needs any blurbs for his book “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” he probably should not seek one from Judge Guido Calabresi. Judge Calabresi was one of three judges on a panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan that on Thursday heard arguments on whether Mr. Colting should be allowed to publish the book in the United States. In July, a federal district judge indefinitely enjoined the publication of “60 Years Later,” which Mr. Colting wrote under the pen name J. D. California, and has promoted as a sequel to the J. D. Salinger novel “The Catcher in the Rye.” On Thursday, The Associated Press reported, Judge Calabresi called Mr. Colting’s book a “rather dismal piece of work.” But two judges on the panel questioned if the federal district court had heard enough evidence before issuing its injunction. The court did not immediately rule on Thursday."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/appeals-court-hears-arguments-on-banned-catcher-sequel/?scp=1&sq=colting&st=cse
If Fredrik Colting needs any blurbs for his book “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” he probably should not seek one from Judge Guido Calabresi. Judge Calabresi was one of three judges on a panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan that on Thursday heard arguments on whether Mr. Colting should be allowed to publish the book in the United States. In July, a federal district judge indefinitely enjoined the publication of “60 Years Later,” which Mr. Colting wrote under the pen name J. D. California, and has promoted as a sequel to the J. D. Salinger novel “The Catcher in the Rye.” On Thursday, The Associated Press reported, Judge Calabresi called Mr. Colting’s book a “rather dismal piece of work.” But two judges on the panel questioned if the federal district court had heard enough evidence before issuing its injunction. The court did not immediately rule on Thursday."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/appeals-court-hears-arguments-on-banned-catcher-sequel/?scp=1&sq=colting&st=cse
Record Labels Say Student Is Still Encouraging Illegal Downloads; New York Times, 9/3/09
Dave Itzkoff via New York Times; Record Labels Say Student Is Still Encouraging Illegal Downloads:
"The cautionary tale of Joel Tenenbaum continues. Weeks after he was ordered to pay $675,000 to record labels for illegally downloading and sharing music, those labels are saying that Mr. Tenenbaum, 25, a graduate student at Boston University, is continuing to encourage music piracy by linking to a file-sharing service on a Web site created for his defense, The Boston Globe reported. A Twitter feed for joelfightsback.com, a Web site run by Mr. Tenenbaum’s legal team, posted a link to the Swedish file-sharing service The Pirate Bay. That site, whose founders were convicted in April by a Swedish court of aiding in copyright violations, posted a playlist called “The $675,000 Mixtape,” which linked to the songs that Mr. Tenenbaum admitted to downloading illegally, and featured a photograph of Mr. Tenenbaum with his arms crossed. The Recording Industry Association of America has filed for an injunction that would order Mr. Tenenbaum to destroy his illegal files and stop promoting piracy. Mr. Tenenbaum said he had nothing to do with the song list on The Pirate Bay, and plans to appeal his verdict and fine."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/record-labels-say-student-is-still-encouraging-illegal-downloads/?scp=2&sq=tenenbaum&st=cse
"The cautionary tale of Joel Tenenbaum continues. Weeks after he was ordered to pay $675,000 to record labels for illegally downloading and sharing music, those labels are saying that Mr. Tenenbaum, 25, a graduate student at Boston University, is continuing to encourage music piracy by linking to a file-sharing service on a Web site created for his defense, The Boston Globe reported. A Twitter feed for joelfightsback.com, a Web site run by Mr. Tenenbaum’s legal team, posted a link to the Swedish file-sharing service The Pirate Bay. That site, whose founders were convicted in April by a Swedish court of aiding in copyright violations, posted a playlist called “The $675,000 Mixtape,” which linked to the songs that Mr. Tenenbaum admitted to downloading illegally, and featured a photograph of Mr. Tenenbaum with his arms crossed. The Recording Industry Association of America has filed for an injunction that would order Mr. Tenenbaum to destroy his illegal files and stop promoting piracy. Mr. Tenenbaum said he had nothing to do with the song list on The Pirate Bay, and plans to appeal his verdict and fine."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/record-labels-say-student-is-still-encouraging-illegal-downloads/?scp=2&sq=tenenbaum&st=cse
Google's Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars; Chronicle of Higher Education, 8/31/09
Geoffrey Nunberg via Chronicle of Higher Education; Google's Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars:
"I'm actually more optimistic than some of my colleagues who have criticized the settlement. Not that I'm counting on selfless public-spiritedness to motivate Google to invest the time and resources in getting this right. But I have the sense that a lot of the initial problems are due to Google's slightly clueless fumbling as it tried master a domain that turned out to be a lot more complex than the company first realized. It's clear that Google designed the system without giving much thought to the need for reliable metadata. In fact, Google's great achievement as a Web search engine was to demonstrate how easy it could be to locate useful information without attending to metadata or resorting to Yahoo-like schemes of classification. But books aren't simply vehicles for communicating information, and managing a vast library collection requires different skills, approaches, and data than those that enabled Google to dominate Web searching.
That makes for a steep learning curve, all the more so because of Google's haste to complete the project so that potential competitors would be confronted with a fait accompli. But whether or not the needs of scholars are a priority, the company doesn't want Google's book search to become a running scholarly joke. And it may be responsive to pressure from its university library partners—who weren't particularly attentive to questions of quality when they signed on with Google—particularly if they are urged (or if necessary, prodded) to make noise about shoddy metadata by the scholars whose interests they represent. If recent history teaches us anything, it's that Google is a very quick study."
http://chronicle.com/article/Googles-Book-Search-A/48245/
"I'm actually more optimistic than some of my colleagues who have criticized the settlement. Not that I'm counting on selfless public-spiritedness to motivate Google to invest the time and resources in getting this right. But I have the sense that a lot of the initial problems are due to Google's slightly clueless fumbling as it tried master a domain that turned out to be a lot more complex than the company first realized. It's clear that Google designed the system without giving much thought to the need for reliable metadata. In fact, Google's great achievement as a Web search engine was to demonstrate how easy it could be to locate useful information without attending to metadata or resorting to Yahoo-like schemes of classification. But books aren't simply vehicles for communicating information, and managing a vast library collection requires different skills, approaches, and data than those that enabled Google to dominate Web searching.
That makes for a steep learning curve, all the more so because of Google's haste to complete the project so that potential competitors would be confronted with a fait accompli. But whether or not the needs of scholars are a priority, the company doesn't want Google's book search to become a running scholarly joke. And it may be responsive to pressure from its university library partners—who weren't particularly attentive to questions of quality when they signed on with Google—particularly if they are urged (or if necessary, prodded) to make noise about shoddy metadata by the scholars whose interests they represent. If recent history teaches us anything, it's that Google is a very quick study."
http://chronicle.com/article/Googles-Book-Search-A/48245/
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Google tries to sidestep criticism of $125m book project; Guardian, 9/3/09
Bobbie Johnson via Guardian; Google tries to sidestep criticism of $125m book project:
Internet giant works to gather support from proponents of digitisation scheme
"Google today attempted to rally supporters of its deal with the US publishing industry, in an effort to combat growing criticism of the $125m (£76m) agreement.
In a press conference today, Google said its settlement with the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild - which was first agreed to last year - would allow millions of books to be digitised, proving many people with the chance to access information that was otherwise unavailable to them.
"The obvious social justice and social utility impact that the book project is going to have ... are getting lost in the discussion," said Professor Lateef Mtima, director of the Institute of Intellectual Property & Social Justice at Howard University, a pioneering black college in Washington.
He suggested it would help "so many segments of our society today who for decades have been left out of the communication exchange, who have been on the wrong side of the digital divide"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/03/google-books-project-digital
Internet giant works to gather support from proponents of digitisation scheme
"Google today attempted to rally supporters of its deal with the US publishing industry, in an effort to combat growing criticism of the $125m (£76m) agreement.
In a press conference today, Google said its settlement with the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild - which was first agreed to last year - would allow millions of books to be digitised, proving many people with the chance to access information that was otherwise unavailable to them.
"The obvious social justice and social utility impact that the book project is going to have ... are getting lost in the discussion," said Professor Lateef Mtima, director of the Institute of Intellectual Property & Social Justice at Howard University, a pioneering black college in Washington.
He suggested it would help "so many segments of our society today who for decades have been left out of the communication exchange, who have been on the wrong side of the digital divide"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/03/google-books-project-digital
Deadline looms as opposition mounts to Google Book Settlement; National Post, 9/3/09
Mark Medley via National Post; Deadline looms as opposition mounts to Google Book Settlement:
Canadian authors debate whether to opt out
"Google's mission statement is at once both ambitious and admirable: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Keeping with that spirit, in 2004 the Internet giant launched what became known as Google Book Search -- "an enhanced card catalogue of the world's books" -- and began digitizing the collections of several libraries and universities, including Oxford and Harvard. It would allow users to search through a massive online library and view sections of the books, ranging from snippets to the entire text. More than seven million titles -- perhaps as many as 10 million -- have been scanned thus far. There was just one problem: Google didn't receive permission from the books' copyright holders. A class-action lawsuit and years of negotiations ensued, leading to the landmark Google Book Settlement reached last October. Authors, publishers, agents and lawyers have spent much of the last year analyzing the complex agreement and trying to figure out what it means for them. It's a quest to disseminate knowledge or a deal with the devil, depending on which side you're on. But one thing is clear: Opposition is growing more vocal in advance of tomorrow's deadline to opt out of the controversial agreement.
"If a complete stranger came and took your car without permission and took it for a drive, what would you call that?" asks Katherine Gordon, one of several Canadian authors leading the charge against the settlement. "It would be theft. So how is this any different?"
On Tuesday, Gordon and several other Canadian authors launched an online campaign opposing the settlement, taking Google to task for "blatant disregard for Canadian legal copyright ownership" and accusing them of keeping authors in the dark, leaving "millions of authors ... unaware their rights will be seriously compromised after Friday.""
http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=1957311
Canadian authors debate whether to opt out
"Google's mission statement is at once both ambitious and admirable: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Keeping with that spirit, in 2004 the Internet giant launched what became known as Google Book Search -- "an enhanced card catalogue of the world's books" -- and began digitizing the collections of several libraries and universities, including Oxford and Harvard. It would allow users to search through a massive online library and view sections of the books, ranging from snippets to the entire text. More than seven million titles -- perhaps as many as 10 million -- have been scanned thus far. There was just one problem: Google didn't receive permission from the books' copyright holders. A class-action lawsuit and years of negotiations ensued, leading to the landmark Google Book Settlement reached last October. Authors, publishers, agents and lawyers have spent much of the last year analyzing the complex agreement and trying to figure out what it means for them. It's a quest to disseminate knowledge or a deal with the devil, depending on which side you're on. But one thing is clear: Opposition is growing more vocal in advance of tomorrow's deadline to opt out of the controversial agreement.
"If a complete stranger came and took your car without permission and took it for a drive, what would you call that?" asks Katherine Gordon, one of several Canadian authors leading the charge against the settlement. "It would be theft. So how is this any different?"
On Tuesday, Gordon and several other Canadian authors launched an online campaign opposing the settlement, taking Google to task for "blatant disregard for Canadian legal copyright ownership" and accusing them of keeping authors in the dark, leaving "millions of authors ... unaware their rights will be seriously compromised after Friday.""
http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=1957311
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Privacy Missing From Google Books Settlement; PC World, 8/28/09
Robert McMillan via PC World; Privacy Missing From Google Books Settlement:
"If Google digitizes the world's books, how will it keep track of what you read?
That's one of the unanswered questions that librarians and privacy experts are grappling with as Google attempts to settle a long-running lawsuit by publishers and copyright holders and move ahead with its effort to digitize millions of books, known as the Google Books Library Project.
For librarians, many of whom are working with Google to digitize their collections of books, it's a thorny question. That's because librarians and the online world have different standards for dealing with user information. Many libraries routinely delete borrower information, and organizations such as the American Library Association have fought hard to preserve the privacy of their patrons in the face of laws such as the U.S. Patriot Act.
But now, as more and more titles become available in Google Book Search, it's not clear whether digital readers will enjoy the same privacy protections they have at the library. "Which way are we going to go?" said Michael Zimmer, a professor from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. "Is this service going to be an extension of the library, or an extension of Web searching?""
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/171089/privacy_missing_from_google_books_settlement.html
"If Google digitizes the world's books, how will it keep track of what you read?
That's one of the unanswered questions that librarians and privacy experts are grappling with as Google attempts to settle a long-running lawsuit by publishers and copyright holders and move ahead with its effort to digitize millions of books, known as the Google Books Library Project.
For librarians, many of whom are working with Google to digitize their collections of books, it's a thorny question. That's because librarians and the online world have different standards for dealing with user information. Many libraries routinely delete borrower information, and organizations such as the American Library Association have fought hard to preserve the privacy of their patrons in the face of laws such as the U.S. Patriot Act.
But now, as more and more titles become available in Google Book Search, it's not clear whether digital readers will enjoy the same privacy protections they have at the library. "Which way are we going to go?" said Michael Zimmer, a professor from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. "Is this service going to be an extension of the library, or an extension of Web searching?""
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/171089/privacy_missing_from_google_books_settlement.html
Coolerbooks.com gets 1M books from Google scans; Associated Press, 9/2/09
Rachel Metz via Associated Press; Coolerbooks.com gets 1M books from Google scans:
"Interead, a British company that sells the COOL-ER e-book reader, is adding more than 1 million free public-domain books to its online bookstore. The texts are available from Google Inc. through its book-scanning project.
However, the online store won't be able to show half of the books outside the U.S. because of copyright restrictions, Interead said."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hhYsP5iV7KbmDgpo-bFJ030Q_o0QD9AF6TE80
"Interead, a British company that sells the COOL-ER e-book reader, is adding more than 1 million free public-domain books to its online bookstore. The texts are available from Google Inc. through its book-scanning project.
However, the online store won't be able to show half of the books outside the U.S. because of copyright restrictions, Interead said."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hhYsP5iV7KbmDgpo-bFJ030Q_o0QD9AF6TE80
Amazon.com Says Congress Should Address Google Book; Bloomberg.com, 9/2/09
Susan Decker and David Glovin via Bloomberg.com; Amazon.com Says Congress Should Address Google Book:
"Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest online retailer, told a U.S. court that Congress, not Google Inc., should be responsible for establishing rules on how to deal with digital copies of books.
An agreement Google reached last year with some U.S. publishers and authors “invades the prerogatives of Congress and attempts to legislate a private solution to a problem that can only truly be solved with across-the-board changes to the copyright law that affect everyone,” Amazon.com said in a court filing yesterday that set out its legal arguments for opposing the settlement...
The case is Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 05-cv-8136, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aPt6KIFwLzH8
"Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest online retailer, told a U.S. court that Congress, not Google Inc., should be responsible for establishing rules on how to deal with digital copies of books.
An agreement Google reached last year with some U.S. publishers and authors “invades the prerogatives of Congress and attempts to legislate a private solution to a problem that can only truly be solved with across-the-board changes to the copyright law that affect everyone,” Amazon.com said in a court filing yesterday that set out its legal arguments for opposing the settlement...
The case is Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 05-cv-8136, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aPt6KIFwLzH8
O'Brien: Scrap Google book settlement and start fresh; San Jose Mercury News, 9/2/09
Chris O'Brien via San Jose Mercury News; Scrap Google book settlement and start fresh:
"At first blush, Google's plan to digitize millions of books seemed like a grand idea, opening up the world's libraries to readers everywhere.
Unfortunately, Google's effort has been clumsy from the start. The Mountain View company bulldozed into the effort in 2005 without building consensus around its plans, and then acted surprised when its motives were questioned.
The result was years of litigation and a proposed settlement that has only antagonized critics.
By Friday, authors need to decide whether they want to accept that settlement or opt out and reserve their right to sue Google.
But before then, I think Google should scrap the whole thing and go back to square one.
The proposed settlement has the potential for creating the framework for how books are digitized for the next century. The stakes for readers, authors and libraries are high.
Unfortunately, many on the outside of this process looking in feel like Google's been throwing its weight around on this issue. Google didn't exactly help matters in this regard when a spokesman was quoted on a Wall Street Journal blog calling one opposition group the "Sour Grapes Alliance." Gee, I wonder why some folks think Google can be arrogant?
It's a shame that it's come to this, because of the amazing potential behind this idea...
No doubt the idea of starting again will elicit groans from the Googleplex. Four years of litigation probably feels like an eternity for a 10-year-old company that's used to moving at Internet speed.
But it's the kind of goodwill gesture that would go a long way toward diffusing the mounting frustration among critics and begin laying the groundwork toward an equitable solution. If Google's motives are true, and I believe they are, then patience is the best course.
It's far more important to get it right than to get it done."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13248382
"At first blush, Google's plan to digitize millions of books seemed like a grand idea, opening up the world's libraries to readers everywhere.
Unfortunately, Google's effort has been clumsy from the start. The Mountain View company bulldozed into the effort in 2005 without building consensus around its plans, and then acted surprised when its motives were questioned.
The result was years of litigation and a proposed settlement that has only antagonized critics.
By Friday, authors need to decide whether they want to accept that settlement or opt out and reserve their right to sue Google.
But before then, I think Google should scrap the whole thing and go back to square one.
The proposed settlement has the potential for creating the framework for how books are digitized for the next century. The stakes for readers, authors and libraries are high.
Unfortunately, many on the outside of this process looking in feel like Google's been throwing its weight around on this issue. Google didn't exactly help matters in this regard when a spokesman was quoted on a Wall Street Journal blog calling one opposition group the "Sour Grapes Alliance." Gee, I wonder why some folks think Google can be arrogant?
It's a shame that it's come to this, because of the amazing potential behind this idea...
No doubt the idea of starting again will elicit groans from the Googleplex. Four years of litigation probably feels like an eternity for a 10-year-old company that's used to moving at Internet speed.
But it's the kind of goodwill gesture that would go a long way toward diffusing the mounting frustration among critics and begin laying the groundwork toward an equitable solution. If Google's motives are true, and I believe they are, then patience is the best course.
It's far more important to get it right than to get it done."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13248382
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
An author's guide to the Google Books flap; CNet News, 9/1/09
Tom Krazit via CNet News; An author's guide to the Google Books flap:
"The issues surrounding Google's Book Search settlement are among the most complex surrounding the company this year: what do authors need to know about their rights and responsibilities?
Google has scanned over 10 million books since 2004 in participation with libraries and publishers in hopes of creating a unique digital library and storefront, and if its pending settlement with books rights holders is approved next month at a hearing, Google will be able to make a far greater portion of those works available through its search engine. Friday is the deadline for authors to decide if they want to participate in the settlement.
The settlement has drawn attention and criticism from groups such as library ethicists and academics for the way it concentrates control of this potentially wondrous public good in the hands of a for-profit company. The Department of Justice is also taking a look at the settlement, which has the potential to throw a large roadblock ahead of the project.
Authors, however, have a few choices to make as they ponder Friday's deadline. Here's a sampling of what they need to know:..."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10322574-265.html
"The issues surrounding Google's Book Search settlement are among the most complex surrounding the company this year: what do authors need to know about their rights and responsibilities?
Google has scanned over 10 million books since 2004 in participation with libraries and publishers in hopes of creating a unique digital library and storefront, and if its pending settlement with books rights holders is approved next month at a hearing, Google will be able to make a far greater portion of those works available through its search engine. Friday is the deadline for authors to decide if they want to participate in the settlement.
The settlement has drawn attention and criticism from groups such as library ethicists and academics for the way it concentrates control of this potentially wondrous public good in the hands of a for-profit company. The Department of Justice is also taking a look at the settlement, which has the potential to throw a large roadblock ahead of the project.
Authors, however, have a few choices to make as they ponder Friday's deadline. Here's a sampling of what they need to know:..."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10322574-265.html
Sunday, August 30, 2009
More questions than answers on Google Books; CNet News, 8/29/09
Tom Krazit via CNet News; More questions than answers on Google Books:
"Google's Dan Clancy had patiently answered question after question regarding Google's' Book Search settlement with publishers and authors until late in the afternoon Friday, when he was finally left speechless.
A young man from the University of California at Berkeley's School of Information asked Clancy what kind of message was sent when Google decided to "copy first and answer questions later." The question--for which there's no safe answer, if you're in Clancy's shoes--perhaps underscored the core of the opposition to the settlement, reached in October, after Google was sued in 2005 for scanning out-of-print works without explicit permission.
If the class action settlement is approved, Google stands to gain control of a priceless asset. Jason Schultz, acting director of UC Berkeley's Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic, called it "the largest copyright-licensing deal in U.S. history:" the right to display the contents of out-of-print books that are still covered by copyright protection.
Google, however, has already scanned more than 10 million books. At the moment, it's not allowed to display more than a few snippets of copyright-protected books for which it doesn't have an explicit agreement with the rights holders. If the settlement is approved, Google will suddenly flip a switch and offer full-text searches of those books, as well as links to bookstores.
Nothing vexes Google's opponents more than the fact that the company assumed that it had the right to digitize nearly 100 years of written material without serious negotiations with those rights holders until it was sued. Authors have until Friday to decide if they want to opt out of the settlement and preserve the right to sue Google on their own for digitizing their book without their permission, though they can tell Google to remove their books from the Book Search archive, even if they remain in the class...
But taking Google at its word requires trust, and trust in corporations is in short supply at this point in American history. It's taken perhaps longer than it should have, but Google is gradually realizing that a fair portion of the public no longer sees it as a cute little Silicon Valley start-up with idealistic stars in its eyes, one that insists "you can make money without doing evil."
Google damaged that trust when it began scanning books without permission, arguing that it was allowed to do so under fair-use laws. Publishers and author groups also harmed that trust when they turned over the key to the castle by bringing the lawsuit as a class action, suddenly making plaintiffs out of millions of authors who did not necessarily appreciate the future value of digital books in 2005, nor authorize the negotiation of the rights to their works."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10321371-265.html
"Google's Dan Clancy had patiently answered question after question regarding Google's' Book Search settlement with publishers and authors until late in the afternoon Friday, when he was finally left speechless.
A young man from the University of California at Berkeley's School of Information asked Clancy what kind of message was sent when Google decided to "copy first and answer questions later." The question--for which there's no safe answer, if you're in Clancy's shoes--perhaps underscored the core of the opposition to the settlement, reached in October, after Google was sued in 2005 for scanning out-of-print works without explicit permission.
If the class action settlement is approved, Google stands to gain control of a priceless asset. Jason Schultz, acting director of UC Berkeley's Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic, called it "the largest copyright-licensing deal in U.S. history:" the right to display the contents of out-of-print books that are still covered by copyright protection.
Google, however, has already scanned more than 10 million books. At the moment, it's not allowed to display more than a few snippets of copyright-protected books for which it doesn't have an explicit agreement with the rights holders. If the settlement is approved, Google will suddenly flip a switch and offer full-text searches of those books, as well as links to bookstores.
Nothing vexes Google's opponents more than the fact that the company assumed that it had the right to digitize nearly 100 years of written material without serious negotiations with those rights holders until it was sued. Authors have until Friday to decide if they want to opt out of the settlement and preserve the right to sue Google on their own for digitizing their book without their permission, though they can tell Google to remove their books from the Book Search archive, even if they remain in the class...
But taking Google at its word requires trust, and trust in corporations is in short supply at this point in American history. It's taken perhaps longer than it should have, but Google is gradually realizing that a fair portion of the public no longer sees it as a cute little Silicon Valley start-up with idealistic stars in its eyes, one that insists "you can make money without doing evil."
Google damaged that trust when it began scanning books without permission, arguing that it was allowed to do so under fair-use laws. Publishers and author groups also harmed that trust when they turned over the key to the castle by bringing the lawsuit as a class action, suddenly making plaintiffs out of millions of authors who did not necessarily appreciate the future value of digital books in 2005, nor authorize the negotiation of the rights to their works."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10321371-265.html
Google's plan for world's biggest online library: philanthropy or act of piracy?, Observer, 8/30/09
William Skidelsky via Observer; Google's plan for world's biggest online library: philanthropy or act of piracy?:
Google has already scanned 10 million books in its bid to digitise the contents of the world's major libraries, but a copyright battle now threatens the project, with Amazon and Microsoft joining authors and publishers opposed to the scheme.
"In recent years the world's most venerable libraries have played host to some incongruous visitors. In dusty nooks and far-flung stacks, teams of workers dispatched by Google have been beavering away to make digital copies of books. So far, Google has scanned more than 10 million titles from libraries in America and Europe – including half a million volumes held by the Bodleian in Oxford. The exact method it uses is unclear; the company does not allow outsiders to observe the process.
Why is Google undertaking such a venture, so seemingly out-of-kilter with its snazzy, hi-tech image? Why is it even interested in all those out-of-print library books, most of which have been gathering dust on forgotten shelves for decades? The company claims its motives are essentially public-spirited. Its overall mission, after all, is to "organise the world's information", so it would be odd if that information did not include books. Like the Ancient Egyptians who attempted to build a library at Alexandria containing all the known world's scrolls, Google executives talk of constructing a universal online archive, a treasure trove of knowledge that will be freely available – or at least freely searchable – for all.
The company likes to present itself as having lofty, utopian aspirations. "This really isn't about making money" is a mantra. "We are doing this for the good of society." As Santiago de la Mora, head of Google Books for Europe, puts it: "By making it possible to search the millions of books that exist today, we hope to expand the frontiers of human knowledge."
Dan Clancy, the chief architect of Google Books, offers an analogy with the invention of the Gutenberg press – Google's book project, he says, will have a similar democratising effect. He talks of people in far-flung parts being able to access knowledge as never before, of search queries leading them to the one, long out-of-print book they need.
And he does seem genuine in his conviction that this is primarily a philanthropic exercise. "Google's core business is search and find, so obviously what helps improve Google's search engine is good for Google," he says. "But we have never built a spreadsheet outlining the financial benefits of this, and I have never had to justify the amount I am spending to the company's founders."
It is easy, talking to Clancy and his colleagues, to be swept along by their missionary zeal. But Google's book-scanning project is proving controversial. Several opponents have recently emerged, ranging from rival tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon to small bodies representing authors and publishers across the world. In broad terms, these opponents have levelled two sets of criticisms at Google.
First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the world's books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company. In a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, Robert Darnton, the head of Harvard University's library, argued that because such books are a common resource – the possession of us all – only public, not-for-profit bodies should be given the power to control them.
The second, related criticism is that Google's scanning of books is actually illegal. This allegation has led to Google becoming mired in a legal battle whose scope and complexity makes the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Bleak House look straightforward.
At its centre, however, is one simple issue: that of copyright. The inconvenient fact about most books, to which Google has arguably paid insufficient attention, is that they are protected by copyright. Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general protection extends for the duration of an author's life and for a substantial period afterwards, thus allowing the author's heirs to benefit. (In Britain and America, this post-death period is 70 years.) This means, of course, that almost all of the books published in the 20th century are still under copyright – and last century saw more books published than in all previous centuries combined. Of the roughly 40 million books in US libraries, for example, an estimated 32 million are in copyright. Of these, some 27 million are out of print.
Outside the US, Google has made sure only to scan books that are out of copyright and thus in the "public domain" (works such as the Bodleian's first edition of Middlemarch, which anyone can read for free on Google Books Search).
But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. In its defence, Google points out that it displays only snippets of books that are in copyright – arguing that such displays are "fair use". But critics allege that by making electronic copies of these books without first seeking the permission of copyright holders, Google has committed piracy.
"The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission," says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. "Google has reversed this – it has simply copied all these works without bothering to ask."
In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers and publishers, launched a class action suit against Google that, after more than two years of wrangling, ended with an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-court settlement. The full details are staggeringly complicated – the text alone runs to 385 pages – and trying to summarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," says Blofeld, one of the settlement's most vocal British critics.
Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to reimburse authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates from their works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future.
The settlement stipulates that a body known as the Books Rights Registry will represent the interests of US copyright holders. Authors and publishers with a copyright interest in a book scanned by Google who make themselves known to the registry will be entitled to receive a payment – in the region of $60 per book – as compensation.
Additionally, the settlement hands Google the power – but only with the agreement of individual rights holders – to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlement's most controversial aspect.
Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, the settlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the company's role from provider of information to seller. "Google's business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates," points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlement's provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling.
Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on "orphan" works, where there is no known copyright holder – these make up an estimated 5% to 10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% of orphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence.
"The deal has in effect handed Google a swath of intellectual copyright. It is a mammoth potential bookselling market," says Blofeld. He adds it is no surprise that Amazon, which currently controls 90% of the digital books market, is becoming worried.
But Dan Clancy of Google dismisses the idea that, by gaining control over out-of-print and orphan works, Google is securing for itself a significant future revenue stream. He points out that out-of-print books represent only a tiny fraction of the books market – between 1% and 2%. "This idea that we are gaining access to a vast market here – I really don't think that is true."
James Gleick, an American science writer and member of the Authors Guild, broadly agrees. He says that, although Google's initial scanning of in-copyright books made him uncomfortable, the settlement itself is a fair deal for authors.
"The thing that needs to be emphasised is that this so-called market over which Google is being given dominance – the market in out-of-print books – doesn't currently exist. That's why they're out of print. In real life, I can't see what the damage is – it's only good."
It is by no means certain that the settlement will be enacted – it is the subject of a fairness hearing in the US courts. But if it is enacted, Google will in effect be off the hook as far as copyright violations in the US are concerned. Many people are seriously concerned by this – and the company is likely to face challenges in other courts around the world.
Over the coming months, we will hear a lot more about the Google settlement and its ramifications. Although it's a subject that may seem obscure and specialised, it concerns one of the biggest issues affecting publishing and, indeed, other creative industries – the control of digital rights.
No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained by scanning the world's library books, and the truth, as Gleick points out, is that the company probably doesn't even know itself. But what is certain is that, in some way or another, Google's entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in years to come."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/30/google-library-project-books-settlement
Google has already scanned 10 million books in its bid to digitise the contents of the world's major libraries, but a copyright battle now threatens the project, with Amazon and Microsoft joining authors and publishers opposed to the scheme.
"In recent years the world's most venerable libraries have played host to some incongruous visitors. In dusty nooks and far-flung stacks, teams of workers dispatched by Google have been beavering away to make digital copies of books. So far, Google has scanned more than 10 million titles from libraries in America and Europe – including half a million volumes held by the Bodleian in Oxford. The exact method it uses is unclear; the company does not allow outsiders to observe the process.
Why is Google undertaking such a venture, so seemingly out-of-kilter with its snazzy, hi-tech image? Why is it even interested in all those out-of-print library books, most of which have been gathering dust on forgotten shelves for decades? The company claims its motives are essentially public-spirited. Its overall mission, after all, is to "organise the world's information", so it would be odd if that information did not include books. Like the Ancient Egyptians who attempted to build a library at Alexandria containing all the known world's scrolls, Google executives talk of constructing a universal online archive, a treasure trove of knowledge that will be freely available – or at least freely searchable – for all.
The company likes to present itself as having lofty, utopian aspirations. "This really isn't about making money" is a mantra. "We are doing this for the good of society." As Santiago de la Mora, head of Google Books for Europe, puts it: "By making it possible to search the millions of books that exist today, we hope to expand the frontiers of human knowledge."
Dan Clancy, the chief architect of Google Books, offers an analogy with the invention of the Gutenberg press – Google's book project, he says, will have a similar democratising effect. He talks of people in far-flung parts being able to access knowledge as never before, of search queries leading them to the one, long out-of-print book they need.
And he does seem genuine in his conviction that this is primarily a philanthropic exercise. "Google's core business is search and find, so obviously what helps improve Google's search engine is good for Google," he says. "But we have never built a spreadsheet outlining the financial benefits of this, and I have never had to justify the amount I am spending to the company's founders."
It is easy, talking to Clancy and his colleagues, to be swept along by their missionary zeal. But Google's book-scanning project is proving controversial. Several opponents have recently emerged, ranging from rival tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon to small bodies representing authors and publishers across the world. In broad terms, these opponents have levelled two sets of criticisms at Google.
First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the world's books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company. In a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, Robert Darnton, the head of Harvard University's library, argued that because such books are a common resource – the possession of us all – only public, not-for-profit bodies should be given the power to control them.
The second, related criticism is that Google's scanning of books is actually illegal. This allegation has led to Google becoming mired in a legal battle whose scope and complexity makes the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Bleak House look straightforward.
At its centre, however, is one simple issue: that of copyright. The inconvenient fact about most books, to which Google has arguably paid insufficient attention, is that they are protected by copyright. Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general protection extends for the duration of an author's life and for a substantial period afterwards, thus allowing the author's heirs to benefit. (In Britain and America, this post-death period is 70 years.) This means, of course, that almost all of the books published in the 20th century are still under copyright – and last century saw more books published than in all previous centuries combined. Of the roughly 40 million books in US libraries, for example, an estimated 32 million are in copyright. Of these, some 27 million are out of print.
Outside the US, Google has made sure only to scan books that are out of copyright and thus in the "public domain" (works such as the Bodleian's first edition of Middlemarch, which anyone can read for free on Google Books Search).
But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. In its defence, Google points out that it displays only snippets of books that are in copyright – arguing that such displays are "fair use". But critics allege that by making electronic copies of these books without first seeking the permission of copyright holders, Google has committed piracy.
"The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission," says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. "Google has reversed this – it has simply copied all these works without bothering to ask."
In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers and publishers, launched a class action suit against Google that, after more than two years of wrangling, ended with an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-court settlement. The full details are staggeringly complicated – the text alone runs to 385 pages – and trying to summarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," says Blofeld, one of the settlement's most vocal British critics.
Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to reimburse authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates from their works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future.
The settlement stipulates that a body known as the Books Rights Registry will represent the interests of US copyright holders. Authors and publishers with a copyright interest in a book scanned by Google who make themselves known to the registry will be entitled to receive a payment – in the region of $60 per book – as compensation.
Additionally, the settlement hands Google the power – but only with the agreement of individual rights holders – to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlement's most controversial aspect.
Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, the settlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the company's role from provider of information to seller. "Google's business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates," points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlement's provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling.
Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on "orphan" works, where there is no known copyright holder – these make up an estimated 5% to 10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% of orphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence.
"The deal has in effect handed Google a swath of intellectual copyright. It is a mammoth potential bookselling market," says Blofeld. He adds it is no surprise that Amazon, which currently controls 90% of the digital books market, is becoming worried.
But Dan Clancy of Google dismisses the idea that, by gaining control over out-of-print and orphan works, Google is securing for itself a significant future revenue stream. He points out that out-of-print books represent only a tiny fraction of the books market – between 1% and 2%. "This idea that we are gaining access to a vast market here – I really don't think that is true."
James Gleick, an American science writer and member of the Authors Guild, broadly agrees. He says that, although Google's initial scanning of in-copyright books made him uncomfortable, the settlement itself is a fair deal for authors.
"The thing that needs to be emphasised is that this so-called market over which Google is being given dominance – the market in out-of-print books – doesn't currently exist. That's why they're out of print. In real life, I can't see what the damage is – it's only good."
It is by no means certain that the settlement will be enacted – it is the subject of a fairness hearing in the US courts. But if it is enacted, Google will in effect be off the hook as far as copyright violations in the US are concerned. Many people are seriously concerned by this – and the company is likely to face challenges in other courts around the world.
Over the coming months, we will hear a lot more about the Google settlement and its ramifications. Although it's a subject that may seem obscure and specialised, it concerns one of the biggest issues affecting publishing and, indeed, other creative industries – the control of digital rights.
No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained by scanning the world's library books, and the truth, as Gleick points out, is that the company probably doesn't even know itself. But what is certain is that, in some way or another, Google's entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in years to come."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/30/google-library-project-books-settlement
OpEd: Pioneers such as Google need to be policed; Observer, 8/30/09
OpEd: Observer; Pioneers such as Google need to be policed:
"THERE HAS BEEN frenzied speculation in recent weeks that Apple is about to launch a revolutionary, hand-held device called the Tablet. Meanwhile, Google is mired in a protracted legal dispute over its right to create an online archive of the world's library books, including millions still in copyright. At first glance, these two pieces of news don't have much in common, but both are part of a battle being waged by the world's big-tech companies for dominance of the digital future.
One way to get a handle on the digital world is to think of it as a new, uncharted landmass, one that has become navigable thanks to the internet. Beyond this new frontier – a kind of 21st-century wild west – lies a terrain where scarcely unimaginable wealth is waiting to be unlocked. Only this time the key battle isn't over a physical resource but over a non-physical one: information. Information is the real estate of the digital age and it is this that the likes of Google, Microsoft and Apple are in the business of exploiting, whether by providing it free, by owning it or by controlling the channels through which it can be sold and delivered.
The opening up of this frontier raises big questions. What do we want the digital realm to look like? Do we want it to be controlled by a few large companies or should it be more pluralistic and democratic? The distrust that many of us feel toward a company such as Google (even while we enthusiastically use its products) stems from a fear that it may be seizing control of this territory before most of us even quite appreciated what was there.
We are both right and wrong to be worried. Right, because it is true that there is a potential for monopolies to be created, and because crucial legal rights, in particular, intellectual property, are in danger of being trampled on as we highlight elsewhere in the paper.
But at the same time, it is important to remember that we have reasons to be grateful for the existence of big, innovative corporations. Just as in the 19th century it was only the railway companies that had the muscle to "open up" the American west, so it is the Googles and Apples of our day that have the vision and wealth to unlock the resources of the digital realm. Apple can create wonders like the Apple Tablet because it has the money to hire the world's best inventors; and Google can scan most of the world's library books because it has the vision and chutzpah to undertake such a venture.
However, it is imperative that such companies are subjected to rigorous scrutiny and proper regulatory vigilance so that dangerous acquisitions of power don't take place."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/30/apple-google-microsoft-tablet-books
"THERE HAS BEEN frenzied speculation in recent weeks that Apple is about to launch a revolutionary, hand-held device called the Tablet. Meanwhile, Google is mired in a protracted legal dispute over its right to create an online archive of the world's library books, including millions still in copyright. At first glance, these two pieces of news don't have much in common, but both are part of a battle being waged by the world's big-tech companies for dominance of the digital future.
One way to get a handle on the digital world is to think of it as a new, uncharted landmass, one that has become navigable thanks to the internet. Beyond this new frontier – a kind of 21st-century wild west – lies a terrain where scarcely unimaginable wealth is waiting to be unlocked. Only this time the key battle isn't over a physical resource but over a non-physical one: information. Information is the real estate of the digital age and it is this that the likes of Google, Microsoft and Apple are in the business of exploiting, whether by providing it free, by owning it or by controlling the channels through which it can be sold and delivered.
The opening up of this frontier raises big questions. What do we want the digital realm to look like? Do we want it to be controlled by a few large companies or should it be more pluralistic and democratic? The distrust that many of us feel toward a company such as Google (even while we enthusiastically use its products) stems from a fear that it may be seizing control of this territory before most of us even quite appreciated what was there.
We are both right and wrong to be worried. Right, because it is true that there is a potential for monopolies to be created, and because crucial legal rights, in particular, intellectual property, are in danger of being trampled on as we highlight elsewhere in the paper.
But at the same time, it is important to remember that we have reasons to be grateful for the existence of big, innovative corporations. Just as in the 19th century it was only the railway companies that had the muscle to "open up" the American west, so it is the Googles and Apples of our day that have the vision and wealth to unlock the resources of the digital realm. Apple can create wonders like the Apple Tablet because it has the money to hire the world's best inventors; and Google can scan most of the world's library books because it has the vision and chutzpah to undertake such a venture.
However, it is imperative that such companies are subjected to rigorous scrutiny and proper regulatory vigilance so that dangerous acquisitions of power don't take place."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/30/apple-google-microsoft-tablet-books
Friday, August 28, 2009
Google Book Search? Try Google Library; CBS News, 8/27/09
CNet's Tom Krazit via CBS News; Google Book Search? Try Google Library:
Plan to Bring Millions of Books Online Raises Concerns over Privacy, Quality and Motive
"There's a sense among several of those planning to speak at Friday's conference that an Internet corporation--even one sworn to "do no evil"--does not necessarily share the same values and principles that librarians rabidly defend. And left unsaid, but by no means absent, is the growing scrutiny paid this year to Google's dominant position in the Internet search market and how that power squares with Google Books and the publishing industry...
Universities do have an alternative in the HathiTrust, a digital library project that counts UC Berkeley and the University of Michigan--also a close partner of Google's--among its partners. That service lacks the scope of what Google is potentially entitled to scan, but it curates the material in a fashion that's better suited to the needs of the academic community.
That's good, because at the moment, Google Book Search is almost laughably unusable for serious research, UC Berkeley's Nunberg said. For example, he pointed out that the Charles Dickens classic "A Tale of Two Cities" is listed in Google Book Search as having been published in 1800; Dickens was born in 1812.
Nunberg plans to speak out on the quality issues with Google Book Search, although he readily concedes that the product was not designed for the needs of academics and scholars. But that only underscores the point: if Google Book Search is the only way to obtain a digital copy of a book 100 years into the future, scholars will have to depend on it for research, he said...
"There's a lot of questions about how they will balance (their) mandate as a for-profit corporation and their mission to provide universal access to information," [ALA's Angela] Maycock said. If it really wants to make the controversy over this settlement go away, Google needs to embrace "the ethical framework that libraries operate under," she said."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/27/tech/cnettechnews/main5269257.shtml
Plan to Bring Millions of Books Online Raises Concerns over Privacy, Quality and Motive
"There's a sense among several of those planning to speak at Friday's conference that an Internet corporation--even one sworn to "do no evil"--does not necessarily share the same values and principles that librarians rabidly defend. And left unsaid, but by no means absent, is the growing scrutiny paid this year to Google's dominant position in the Internet search market and how that power squares with Google Books and the publishing industry...
Universities do have an alternative in the HathiTrust, a digital library project that counts UC Berkeley and the University of Michigan--also a close partner of Google's--among its partners. That service lacks the scope of what Google is potentially entitled to scan, but it curates the material in a fashion that's better suited to the needs of the academic community.
That's good, because at the moment, Google Book Search is almost laughably unusable for serious research, UC Berkeley's Nunberg said. For example, he pointed out that the Charles Dickens classic "A Tale of Two Cities" is listed in Google Book Search as having been published in 1800; Dickens was born in 1812.
Nunberg plans to speak out on the quality issues with Google Book Search, although he readily concedes that the product was not designed for the needs of academics and scholars. But that only underscores the point: if Google Book Search is the only way to obtain a digital copy of a book 100 years into the future, scholars will have to depend on it for research, he said...
"There's a lot of questions about how they will balance (their) mandate as a for-profit corporation and their mission to provide universal access to information," [ALA's Angela] Maycock said. If it really wants to make the controversy over this settlement go away, Google needs to embrace "the ethical framework that libraries operate under," she said."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/27/tech/cnettechnews/main5269257.shtml
Librarians apply scrutiny to Google Books at Berkeley con; ZDNet Government, 8/27/09
Richard Koman via ZDNet Government; Librarians apply scrutiny to Google Books at Berkeley con:
"If you’re in the Bay Area and you want a full day of wonky debate, check out UC Berkeley’s Google Books Conference. It features panels on how the Google Books settlement affect data mining, privacy, information quality and public access.
The conference comes hard on the heels of the formation of the Open Book Alliance, an organization driven by the Internet Archive and including Amazon, Yahoo and Microsoft, as well as library and small publishing groups among its members. Most of the speakers are opposed to the deal but Google’s Tom [sic] Clancy will be there to make the company’s argument....
But if Google is the last library, as Berkeley linguist Geoff Nunberg says, it’s a pretty bad one. That means serious library science must be applied to the online collection before we should outsource the history of human (or at least Western) knowledge to Google:
Google Book Search is almost laughably unusable for serious research, UC Berkeley’s Nunberg said. For example, he pointed out that the Charles Dickens classic “A Tale of Two Cities” is listed in Google Book Search as having been published in 1800; Dickens was born in 1812."
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5309
"If you’re in the Bay Area and you want a full day of wonky debate, check out UC Berkeley’s Google Books Conference. It features panels on how the Google Books settlement affect data mining, privacy, information quality and public access.
The conference comes hard on the heels of the formation of the Open Book Alliance, an organization driven by the Internet Archive and including Amazon, Yahoo and Microsoft, as well as library and small publishing groups among its members. Most of the speakers are opposed to the deal but Google’s Tom [sic] Clancy will be there to make the company’s argument....
But if Google is the last library, as Berkeley linguist Geoff Nunberg says, it’s a pretty bad one. That means serious library science must be applied to the online collection before we should outsource the history of human (or at least Western) knowledge to Google:
Google Book Search is almost laughably unusable for serious research, UC Berkeley’s Nunberg said. For example, he pointed out that the Charles Dickens classic “A Tale of Two Cities” is listed in Google Book Search as having been published in 1800; Dickens was born in 1812."
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5309
Google Book Search - Is it The Last Library?; Register, 8/29/09
Cate Metz via Register; Google Book Search - Is it The Last Library?:
"Geoff Nunberg, one of America's leading linguistics researchers, laid this rather ominous tag on Google's controversial book-scanning project amidst an amusingly-heated debate this afternoon on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.
"This is likely to be The Last Library," Nunberg said during a University conference dedicated to Google Book Search and the company's accompanying $125m settlement with US authors and publishers. "Nobody is very likely to scan these books again. The cost of scanning isn't going to come down. There's no Moore's Law for scanning.
"We don't know who's going to be running these files 100 years from now. It may be Google. It may be News Corp. It may WalMart. But we can say with some certainty that 100 years from now, these are the very files scholars will be using."...
Predictably, Google Book Search engineering lead Dan Clancy takes issue with The Last Library characterization. He acknowledges that some of the works Google has scanned will never be scanned again. But he's adamant that although Google has a 10-million-book head start - and a monopoly-building boondoggle of a settlement with authors and publishers - others will compete.
"I don't view Google Book Search as the one and only library," he said. "I don't think it should be and I don't think it will be - in part because, remember, a library is about accessing information, not just accessing books. Libraries were created because books were where information was in the past.
"Libraries are about information, and...Google is not the only book-scanning activity in existence today. There will continue to be other activities. And the internet provides all sorts of information that are linked together in all sorts of ways."...
Though he wouldn't say how much Google has spent scanning books, Clancy admitted it wasn't cheap. "It's a lot," he said. "If this was just tens of millions of dollars, we wouldn't all be siting here debating this. Microsoft would have kept scanning. And there would be much more incentive to do this.""
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/29/google_books/
"Geoff Nunberg, one of America's leading linguistics researchers, laid this rather ominous tag on Google's controversial book-scanning project amidst an amusingly-heated debate this afternoon on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.
"This is likely to be The Last Library," Nunberg said during a University conference dedicated to Google Book Search and the company's accompanying $125m settlement with US authors and publishers. "Nobody is very likely to scan these books again. The cost of scanning isn't going to come down. There's no Moore's Law for scanning.
"We don't know who's going to be running these files 100 years from now. It may be Google. It may be News Corp. It may WalMart. But we can say with some certainty that 100 years from now, these are the very files scholars will be using."...
Predictably, Google Book Search engineering lead Dan Clancy takes issue with The Last Library characterization. He acknowledges that some of the works Google has scanned will never be scanned again. But he's adamant that although Google has a 10-million-book head start - and a monopoly-building boondoggle of a settlement with authors and publishers - others will compete.
"I don't view Google Book Search as the one and only library," he said. "I don't think it should be and I don't think it will be - in part because, remember, a library is about accessing information, not just accessing books. Libraries were created because books were where information was in the past.
"Libraries are about information, and...Google is not the only book-scanning activity in existence today. There will continue to be other activities. And the internet provides all sorts of information that are linked together in all sorts of ways."...
Though he wouldn't say how much Google has spent scanning books, Clancy admitted it wasn't cheap. "It's a lot," he said. "If this was just tens of millions of dollars, we wouldn't all be siting here debating this. Microsoft would have kept scanning. And there would be much more incentive to do this.""
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/29/google_books/
Google's One Million Books; Forbes, 8/28/09
Steve Pociask via Forbes; Google's One Million Books:
There is still major concern over Google's settlement with author and publisher groups.
"Imagine that your home and the homes of millions of your neighbors are burglarized. Now, say you catch the perpetrator and the case goes to trial. What would you expect--the return of all of your valuable possessions, stringent penalties for damages and jail time for the perpetrator? But instead, the judge agrees to a settlement that lets the perpetrator avoid any penalties, jail time or probation; he lets the perpetrator use the stolen contents for as long as he wants, provided he pays each victim a one-time fee per item; and, for those victims not knowing that their contents were stolen, the perpetrator can keep and use it, without any compensation or penalty at all. Would such a settlement seem fair?
While just an illustration, there are similarities to what is happening now in a court case involving online scanning and use of millions of books, which is in direct violation of copyright protections given to authors and, in this case, the Department of Justice has taken notice, as have a number of state attorneys general and the European Union's competition commission.
In the coming days, authors must decide whether to opt out of the settlement, and in the coming weeks Judge Denny Chin is likely to decide on a settlement involving copyright infringement claims against Google."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/google-book-copyright-opinions-contributors-steve-pociask.html
There is still major concern over Google's settlement with author and publisher groups.
"Imagine that your home and the homes of millions of your neighbors are burglarized. Now, say you catch the perpetrator and the case goes to trial. What would you expect--the return of all of your valuable possessions, stringent penalties for damages and jail time for the perpetrator? But instead, the judge agrees to a settlement that lets the perpetrator avoid any penalties, jail time or probation; he lets the perpetrator use the stolen contents for as long as he wants, provided he pays each victim a one-time fee per item; and, for those victims not knowing that their contents were stolen, the perpetrator can keep and use it, without any compensation or penalty at all. Would such a settlement seem fair?
While just an illustration, there are similarities to what is happening now in a court case involving online scanning and use of millions of books, which is in direct violation of copyright protections given to authors and, in this case, the Department of Justice has taken notice, as have a number of state attorneys general and the European Union's competition commission.
In the coming days, authors must decide whether to opt out of the settlement, and in the coming weeks Judge Denny Chin is likely to decide on a settlement involving copyright infringement claims against Google."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/google-book-copyright-opinions-contributors-steve-pociask.html
Has Google Already Won The Book War?; Forbes, 8/26/09
Dirk Smillie via Forbes; Has Google Already Won The Book War?:
It scanned first and asked questions later. Opponents of a rights settlement may not have a chance.
"Excerpts, and in many cases the entire contents, of a staggering number of books are readily available on Google Book Search, yet some of the most definitive works on Google itself are nowhere to be found at the site. Recent searches for Jeff Jarvis' What Would Google Do?, David Vise's The Google Story and John Battelle's The Search produced the following message: "no preview."
Snippets and excerpts of 7 million other books do show up in the database, which critics accuse of being unfairly selective and financially unjust to writers. These are some of the concerns held by William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, which last week fired off an e-mail alert to its authors, urging them to opt out of a complex settlement between Google ( GOOG - news - people ), the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/26/google-books-morris-business-media-copyright.html
It scanned first and asked questions later. Opponents of a rights settlement may not have a chance.
"Excerpts, and in many cases the entire contents, of a staggering number of books are readily available on Google Book Search, yet some of the most definitive works on Google itself are nowhere to be found at the site. Recent searches for Jeff Jarvis' What Would Google Do?, David Vise's The Google Story and John Battelle's The Search produced the following message: "no preview."
Snippets and excerpts of 7 million other books do show up in the database, which critics accuse of being unfairly selective and financially unjust to writers. These are some of the concerns held by William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, which last week fired off an e-mail alert to its authors, urging them to opt out of a complex settlement between Google ( GOOG - news - people ), the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/26/google-books-morris-business-media-copyright.html
Europe Seeks to Ease Rules for Putting Books Online ; New York Times, 8/28/09
James Kanter via New York Times; Europe Seeks to Ease Rules for Putting Books Online:
"The European Commission on Friday will propose drafting rules that would make it easier to put many books and manuscripts online. The move is a part of the commission’s effort to bolster access to information and to encourage online businesses.
The changes would be aimed at allowing Internet users to access out-of-print works and so-called orphan works for which it is impossible or very difficult to trace the rights holders, said Viviane Reding, the European Union commissioner who oversees the Internet.
Any new rules eventually proposed by Ms. Reding could also make it easier to acquire a single digital copyright covering the European Union, rather than having to deal with agencies in each of its member states....
Ms. Reding is stepping up her campaign to modify the European Union’s copyright rules to suit a new era and to enable citizens to locate content on public sites like Europeana, a digital library of Europe’s cultural heritage, as well as on private sites.
A hearing will be held next month in Brussels on Google’s efforts to digitize major collections of books and the company’s proposed settlement with book publishers in the United States.
Ms. Reding said Europeans should “look very closely at the discussions in the U.S. to see how the experience made there could best be used for finding a European solution.”
On Thursday, European officials highlighted the role that private companies like Google could play in helping financially struggling public authorities carry out the expensive task of digitizing materials like books.
Ms. Reding’s suggestions — which are open to public comment until mid-November — broadly mirror aspects of United States copyright law and echo the proposed Google settlement by creating a central registry for the works."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/technology/internet/28books.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=europe%20books&st=cse
"The European Commission on Friday will propose drafting rules that would make it easier to put many books and manuscripts online. The move is a part of the commission’s effort to bolster access to information and to encourage online businesses.
The changes would be aimed at allowing Internet users to access out-of-print works and so-called orphan works for which it is impossible or very difficult to trace the rights holders, said Viviane Reding, the European Union commissioner who oversees the Internet.
Any new rules eventually proposed by Ms. Reding could also make it easier to acquire a single digital copyright covering the European Union, rather than having to deal with agencies in each of its member states....
Ms. Reding is stepping up her campaign to modify the European Union’s copyright rules to suit a new era and to enable citizens to locate content on public sites like Europeana, a digital library of Europe’s cultural heritage, as well as on private sites.
A hearing will be held next month in Brussels on Google’s efforts to digitize major collections of books and the company’s proposed settlement with book publishers in the United States.
Ms. Reding said Europeans should “look very closely at the discussions in the U.S. to see how the experience made there could best be used for finding a European solution.”
On Thursday, European officials highlighted the role that private companies like Google could play in helping financially struggling public authorities carry out the expensive task of digitizing materials like books.
Ms. Reding’s suggestions — which are open to public comment until mid-November — broadly mirror aspects of United States copyright law and echo the proposed Google settlement by creating a central registry for the works."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/technology/internet/28books.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=europe%20books&st=cse
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Google brings dead books back into being; IrishTimes.com, 8/27/09
Bill Echikson via IrishTimes.com; Google brings dead books back into being:
OPINION: FOURTEEN YEARS ago, I published a book called Burgundy Stars: a Year in the Life of a Great French Restaurant . Despite warm reviews, sales were tepid and it soon went out of print. Today, you have to either go to the library and hope my take on haute cuisine is stocked or search in used book shops. I have moved on to work for Google and my book remains in copyright but almost impossible to find, writes BILL ECHIKSON...
For in-copyright books, services like Google Book Search or Amazon’s Look Inside the Book partner with publishers who provide us with their books, which we scan and put online with a limited preview of the text. Readers gain a good idea of the content of the book and get information on where to purchase or borrow the book. All told, some 25,000 publishers have signed up to participate in Book Search’s Partner Programme, contributing over one million books.
Books which are in copyright but out of print are the trickiest category, and the one that makes up the vast majority.
The agreement announced in October 2008 between Google and a broad class of copyright holders in the US will dramatically expand access to out-of-print books, creating new revenue opportunities for authors and publishers. The new registry should help reduce the number of in-copyright works whose owners cannot be identified or found because authors will have a concrete economic incentive to come forward, claim their works and then earn money. For books that are in-print, the agreement would offer new distribution opportunities to copyright holders in the US.
What does this breakthrough mean for Europe? Unfortunately, little. International authors and publishers whose books have been scanned from an American library may benefit from the new revenue that will come as American readers discover and purchase their books. They can register with the new registry to control and profit from online access to their books, or, just like American authors, they can choose to opt out.
The registry will also benefit rightsholders by helping potential licensers for Europe reach out to rightsholders and negotiate agreements to license works in the EU. But no readers outside of the US will reap the benefits American readers will see – because the agreement is under US law, it can only govern what happens within the US.
The European handwringing over this project seems out of place. I have not made a cent on Burgundy Stars since publication. Under the new Google deal, I may finally get some further value from my copyright. I look forward to the time when readers have a chance to rediscover my long lost book and I would love not only for Americans to receive this opportunity, but for readers around the world, too.
Bill Echikson is author of four books and senior manager of European communications in Google"
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0827/1224253336214.html
OPINION: FOURTEEN YEARS ago, I published a book called Burgundy Stars: a Year in the Life of a Great French Restaurant . Despite warm reviews, sales were tepid and it soon went out of print. Today, you have to either go to the library and hope my take on haute cuisine is stocked or search in used book shops. I have moved on to work for Google and my book remains in copyright but almost impossible to find, writes BILL ECHIKSON...
For in-copyright books, services like Google Book Search or Amazon’s Look Inside the Book partner with publishers who provide us with their books, which we scan and put online with a limited preview of the text. Readers gain a good idea of the content of the book and get information on where to purchase or borrow the book. All told, some 25,000 publishers have signed up to participate in Book Search’s Partner Programme, contributing over one million books.
Books which are in copyright but out of print are the trickiest category, and the one that makes up the vast majority.
The agreement announced in October 2008 between Google and a broad class of copyright holders in the US will dramatically expand access to out-of-print books, creating new revenue opportunities for authors and publishers. The new registry should help reduce the number of in-copyright works whose owners cannot be identified or found because authors will have a concrete economic incentive to come forward, claim their works and then earn money. For books that are in-print, the agreement would offer new distribution opportunities to copyright holders in the US.
What does this breakthrough mean for Europe? Unfortunately, little. International authors and publishers whose books have been scanned from an American library may benefit from the new revenue that will come as American readers discover and purchase their books. They can register with the new registry to control and profit from online access to their books, or, just like American authors, they can choose to opt out.
The registry will also benefit rightsholders by helping potential licensers for Europe reach out to rightsholders and negotiate agreements to license works in the EU. But no readers outside of the US will reap the benefits American readers will see – because the agreement is under US law, it can only govern what happens within the US.
The European handwringing over this project seems out of place. I have not made a cent on Burgundy Stars since publication. Under the new Google deal, I may finally get some further value from my copyright. I look forward to the time when readers have a chance to rediscover my long lost book and I would love not only for Americans to receive this opportunity, but for readers around the world, too.
Bill Echikson is author of four books and senior manager of European communications in Google"
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0827/1224253336214.html
The New Rumpelstiltskin: Google Books; San Francisco Chronicle, 8/21/09
Michelle Richmond via San Francisco Chronicle; The New Rumpelstiltskin: Google Books:
"There's a new Rumpelstiltskin in town, but he's not going after the miller's daughter. This Rumpelstiltskin has set his sights on authors, who, according to critics, may unwittingly spin him buckets full of gold. Judging from the panic issuing from home offices and cafes across the country, you'd think he was trying to steal our firstborn.
I'm talking about Google Books, and a deal negotiated between the Internet giant and the Authors Guild: the Google Books Settlement.
Maggie Shiels of the BBC writes today about the late but noisy outcry from Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon, who protest the settlement on the grounds that it constitutes a monopoly on digitization of books. The naysayers in the Internet industry have a point, not to mention an enormous stake in the matter. But coming purely from an author's perspective, I feel quite a bit less alarmed than some of my colleagues.
I'm of a mind to believe that the settlement may actually be advantageous for authors. For one thing, we write books in the hopes that they will be read....
There's a wee bit of money involved, but not enough, at the outset, to be a determining factor unless you're truly a starving artist. Each author will get anywhere from $60 to $300 per book that was scanned by Google without authorization. That's enough to buy a few reams of paper or a nice bottle of Scotch, but not much else. In the future, authors will share with publishers 67% of the profits gleaned from digitization of their books, with 33% going to Google (therein the spun gold). Profits will presumably come from ads listed beside any page of a book, as well as from purchases of digital copies of the book--if the author chooses to allow this type of purchase. Ultimately, this could turn out to be a lot of money, but again, it's too early to tell.
That's really not so scary, is it? Of course, Rumpelstiltskin didn't appear scary either, when he first appeared to the miller's daughter, offering to help her spin gold for the king. It wasn't until later that he showed his true colors, and tried to make off with her baby."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/richmond/detail?entry_id=45958
"There's a new Rumpelstiltskin in town, but he's not going after the miller's daughter. This Rumpelstiltskin has set his sights on authors, who, according to critics, may unwittingly spin him buckets full of gold. Judging from the panic issuing from home offices and cafes across the country, you'd think he was trying to steal our firstborn.
I'm talking about Google Books, and a deal negotiated between the Internet giant and the Authors Guild: the Google Books Settlement.
Maggie Shiels of the BBC writes today about the late but noisy outcry from Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon, who protest the settlement on the grounds that it constitutes a monopoly on digitization of books. The naysayers in the Internet industry have a point, not to mention an enormous stake in the matter. But coming purely from an author's perspective, I feel quite a bit less alarmed than some of my colleagues.
I'm of a mind to believe that the settlement may actually be advantageous for authors. For one thing, we write books in the hopes that they will be read....
There's a wee bit of money involved, but not enough, at the outset, to be a determining factor unless you're truly a starving artist. Each author will get anywhere from $60 to $300 per book that was scanned by Google without authorization. That's enough to buy a few reams of paper or a nice bottle of Scotch, but not much else. In the future, authors will share with publishers 67% of the profits gleaned from digitization of their books, with 33% going to Google (therein the spun gold). Profits will presumably come from ads listed beside any page of a book, as well as from purchases of digital copies of the book--if the author chooses to allow this type of purchase. Ultimately, this could turn out to be a lot of money, but again, it's too early to tell.
That's really not so scary, is it? Of course, Rumpelstiltskin didn't appear scary either, when he first appeared to the miller's daughter, offering to help her spin gold for the king. It wasn't until later that he showed his true colors, and tried to make off with her baby."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/richmond/detail?entry_id=45958
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Open Books Alliance calls for investigation into Google Books Settlement; Information World Review, 8/25/09
Information World Review; Open Books Alliance calls for investigation into Google Books Settlement:
"The Open Books Alliance seeks resolution on issues of copyright, access, anti-trust and privacy.
SLA chief executive Janice Lachance said: “A completely electronic, searchable, and universally accessible repository of digital books has the potential to bring untold value and knowledge to individuals, organisations and libraries, making more information available to more people around the globe. We look forward to that day. “In the meantime, we are joining this effort because we believe that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) must look into the full ramifications of this settlement on issues of copyright, access, affordability and privacy.”
SLA aims at ensuring that any mass book digitisation and distribution system addresses those extremely important issues, and that access to such valuable information remains open and competitive.
“As with any important legal decision that may threaten the accessibility of information to the public, SLA believes it should be grounded in sound public policy, be mindful of the long-term benefits for the greater good, as well as take into consideration input from the public and important stakeholders,” Lachance added.
In the coming weeks, the alliance will release information about its intent, the members, and its actions, including specific details as to its intended course of action with the DOJ."
http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2248405/open-books-alliance-calls
"The Open Books Alliance seeks resolution on issues of copyright, access, anti-trust and privacy.
SLA chief executive Janice Lachance said: “A completely electronic, searchable, and universally accessible repository of digital books has the potential to bring untold value and knowledge to individuals, organisations and libraries, making more information available to more people around the globe. We look forward to that day. “In the meantime, we are joining this effort because we believe that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) must look into the full ramifications of this settlement on issues of copyright, access, affordability and privacy.”
SLA aims at ensuring that any mass book digitisation and distribution system addresses those extremely important issues, and that access to such valuable information remains open and competitive.
“As with any important legal decision that may threaten the accessibility of information to the public, SLA believes it should be grounded in sound public policy, be mindful of the long-term benefits for the greater good, as well as take into consideration input from the public and important stakeholders,” Lachance added.
In the coming weeks, the alliance will release information about its intent, the members, and its actions, including specific details as to its intended course of action with the DOJ."
http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2248405/open-books-alliance-calls
Monday, August 24, 2009
Ownership of Unix Copyright Headed to Trial; New York Times, 8/24/09
Associated Press via New York Times; Ownership of Unix Copyright Headed to Trial:
"A federal appeals court on Monday reversed a judge's decision that grant the copyright of the Unix computer operating system to Novell Inc.
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a judge erred in August 2007 by granting the copyright to Novell. The panel ordered a trial to determine ownership.
Novell, a software and computer infrastructure company, has been locked in a yearslong legal battle with The SCO Group Inc. of Lindon, Utah, over ownership to the copyright."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/24/business/AP-CO-SCO-Group-Novell.html?_r=1
"A federal appeals court on Monday reversed a judge's decision that grant the copyright of the Unix computer operating system to Novell Inc.
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a judge erred in August 2007 by granting the copyright to Novell. The panel ordered a trial to determine ownership.
Novell, a software and computer infrastructure company, has been locked in a yearslong legal battle with The SCO Group Inc. of Lindon, Utah, over ownership to the copyright."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/24/business/AP-CO-SCO-Group-Novell.html?_r=1
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Europe Divided on Google Book Deal; New York Times, 8/24/09
Kevin J. O'Brien and Eric Pfanner via New York Times; Europe Divided on Google Book Deal:
"The proposed U.S. legal settlement giving Google the right to sell digital copies of millions of books is dividing publishers and authors in Europe, which has struggled to develop viable alternatives to Google’s ambitious book digitization project.
Some big European publishers, like Oxford University Press, and Bertelsmann and Holtzbrinck, which own Random House and Macmillan respectively, support the agreement, which remains subject to approval by a U.S. judge. They see the pact as greatly expanding the visibility of their archives for online purchase. But opposition to the deal, which would allow U.S. consumers to buy online access to millions of books by European authors whose works were scanned at U.S. libraries, is mounting.
There is widespread opposition among French publishers, and the government of Germany, along with national collection societies in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Spain, plan to argue against it and encourage writers to pull out of the agreement...
Some are also concerned about a lack of European representation on the Book Rights Registry, a panel that is supposed to collect and distribute revenue from Google’s U.S. book sales to authors and publishers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/technology/internet/24iht-books.html
"The proposed U.S. legal settlement giving Google the right to sell digital copies of millions of books is dividing publishers and authors in Europe, which has struggled to develop viable alternatives to Google’s ambitious book digitization project.
Some big European publishers, like Oxford University Press, and Bertelsmann and Holtzbrinck, which own Random House and Macmillan respectively, support the agreement, which remains subject to approval by a U.S. judge. They see the pact as greatly expanding the visibility of their archives for online purchase. But opposition to the deal, which would allow U.S. consumers to buy online access to millions of books by European authors whose works were scanned at U.S. libraries, is mounting.
There is widespread opposition among French publishers, and the government of Germany, along with national collection societies in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Spain, plan to argue against it and encourage writers to pull out of the agreement...
Some are also concerned about a lack of European representation on the Book Rights Registry, a panel that is supposed to collect and distribute revenue from Google’s U.S. book sales to authors and publishers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/technology/internet/24iht-books.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)