Jamie Doward and Paul Harris, Guardian; Google digital library plan opposed by Angela Merkel:
"German chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday waded into the row over Google's plans to build a massive digital library.
The move was a remarkable intervention from a leading world politician in a growing dispute about the threat posed by the internet, and Google in particular, to publishing companies, authors and also newspapers.
In her weekly video podcast, before the opening of the Frankfurt Book Fair this week, Merkel appealed for more international co-operation on copyright protection and said her government opposed Google's drive to create online libraries full of scanned books.
"The German government has a clear position: copyrights have to be protected on the internet," Merkel said, adding that there were "considerable dangers" for copyright protection online.
Merkel, who will officially open the world's largest book fair in Germany's financial capital on Tuesday, said there was a need to discuss the issue in greater detail."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/11/google-digital-library-merkel-opposition
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
"Libraries, Publishers and Leading Advocates Join Open Book Alliance in Calling for Open, Transparent Settlement Process", Reuters, 10/6/09
Reuters; Libraries, Publishers and Leading Advocates Join Open Book Alliance in Calling for Open, Transparent Settlement Process in Google Book Search Case:
"Dozens of leading academic,library, consumer advocacy, organized labor and publishing organizationsjoined the Open Book Alliance today in calling on Google and its litigationpartners to create an open and transparent process to negotiate a settlementin the Google Book Search case.
The parties published an open letter toGoogle, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers,demanding that they include key stakeholders to represent the broad range ofpublic interests in the mass digitization of books. Google and its partnersabandoned a previous settlement proposed in the case after the U.S. Departmentof Justice and others criticized the deal and recommended that the courtreject it, but Google and the plaintiff publishers continue to negotiatebehind closed doors on a revised settlement proposal.
The letter, available at http://www.openbookalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Open-Letter-Oct-6-09.pdf,states in part:
"The Department of Justice identified scores of serious problems with theproposed settlement, which cannot be fixed with simple alterations to theagreement. Other stakeholders raised even more objections, which the partieshave largely ignored. In order to address these very real and very complexchallenges, negotiations on this issue must involve a broad range ofstakeholders in an open and transparent manner."
Joining the Open Book Alliance in calling on Google and its partners to openthe process in service of the public interest are leading library associationssuch as the New York Library Association, the Ohio Library Council, the NewJersey Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association; publisherssuch as the Council of Literary and Magazine Presses and Sarabande Books;writers' representatives such as the National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981;and many others concerned that Google will unfairly monopolize the massdigitization of books, raising prices for consumers and limiting access toimportant literary works.
The letter signatories universally support the goal of book digitization -making books searchable, readable and downloadable. They insist, however, thatGoogle and a few publishing groups not be permitted to be the sole controllersof this major cultural development, saying:
"Discussion and debate about the right way to digitize the world's writtenworks must proceed through a robust process that includes input from allstakeholders, including authors, libraries, independent publishers, consumeradvocates, state Attorneys General, the Justice Department, and Congress.""
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS168494+06-Oct-2009+PRN20091006
"Dozens of leading academic,library, consumer advocacy, organized labor and publishing organizationsjoined the Open Book Alliance today in calling on Google and its litigationpartners to create an open and transparent process to negotiate a settlementin the Google Book Search case.
The parties published an open letter toGoogle, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers,demanding that they include key stakeholders to represent the broad range ofpublic interests in the mass digitization of books. Google and its partnersabandoned a previous settlement proposed in the case after the U.S. Departmentof Justice and others criticized the deal and recommended that the courtreject it, but Google and the plaintiff publishers continue to negotiatebehind closed doors on a revised settlement proposal.
The letter, available at http://www.openbookalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Open-Letter-Oct-6-09.pdf,states in part:
"The Department of Justice identified scores of serious problems with theproposed settlement, which cannot be fixed with simple alterations to theagreement. Other stakeholders raised even more objections, which the partieshave largely ignored. In order to address these very real and very complexchallenges, negotiations on this issue must involve a broad range ofstakeholders in an open and transparent manner."
Joining the Open Book Alliance in calling on Google and its partners to openthe process in service of the public interest are leading library associationssuch as the New York Library Association, the Ohio Library Council, the NewJersey Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association; publisherssuch as the Council of Literary and Magazine Presses and Sarabande Books;writers' representatives such as the National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981;and many others concerned that Google will unfairly monopolize the massdigitization of books, raising prices for consumers and limiting access toimportant literary works.
The letter signatories universally support the goal of book digitization -making books searchable, readable and downloadable. They insist, however, thatGoogle and a few publishing groups not be permitted to be the sole controllersof this major cultural development, saying:
"Discussion and debate about the right way to digitize the world's writtenworks must proceed through a robust process that includes input from allstakeholders, including authors, libraries, independent publishers, consumeradvocates, state Attorneys General, the Justice Department, and Congress.""
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS168494+06-Oct-2009+PRN20091006
Google's Sergey Brin lashes out at critics of $125m book deal; Guardian, 10/9/09
Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; Google's Sergey Brin lashes out at critics of $125m book deal:
"Google co-founder Sergey Brin has hit out at critics who derailed the company's $125m deal with American publishers to give it the right to digitise millions of books...
In a column published in the New York Times, Brin - who founded the internet giant with Larry Page in 1998 - hit out at those objectors, called many of their accusations "myths" while dismissing other concerns as fantasy...
Brin's comments come a day after he came in for fierce criticism from Brewster Kahle, the founder of the non-profit Internet Archive, which has been working to secure a change in copyright law to help digitisation projects. In particular, the archive has been working to clarify the status of so-called "orphan" works - books whose copyright holder remains unknown - by pushing new legislation through the US Congress.
Under Google's proposal, the Californian internet company would have gained the exclusive right to sell advertising or access to orphan works - something Kahle felt was inappropriate.
"Many of us are objecting because we have been working together for years on the mass scanning of out-of-print books – and have worked to get books online for far longer than Google – and Google's 'settlement' could hurt our efforts," he wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "A major part of our efforts have concentrated on changing the law so everyone would benefit."
"There is an alternative, and they know it — orphan works legislation — that up until the last session of Congress had been working its way through the house and senate. It was not perfect, but was getting close to what we need. Best yet, it passed one house — at least until Google effectively sideswiped the process with their settlement proposal."
In his editorial, Brin admitted that Google would have exclusive rights over such material, at least in the short term - but then suggested that Google's deal would actually help attempts to force through a legislative change.
"While new projects will not immediately have the same rights to orphan works, the agreement will be a beacon of compromise in case of a similar lawsuit, and it will serve as a precedent for orphan works legislation, which Google has always supported and will continue to support.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/09/google-books-brin
"Google co-founder Sergey Brin has hit out at critics who derailed the company's $125m deal with American publishers to give it the right to digitise millions of books...
In a column published in the New York Times, Brin - who founded the internet giant with Larry Page in 1998 - hit out at those objectors, called many of their accusations "myths" while dismissing other concerns as fantasy...
Brin's comments come a day after he came in for fierce criticism from Brewster Kahle, the founder of the non-profit Internet Archive, which has been working to secure a change in copyright law to help digitisation projects. In particular, the archive has been working to clarify the status of so-called "orphan" works - books whose copyright holder remains unknown - by pushing new legislation through the US Congress.
Under Google's proposal, the Californian internet company would have gained the exclusive right to sell advertising or access to orphan works - something Kahle felt was inappropriate.
"Many of us are objecting because we have been working together for years on the mass scanning of out-of-print books – and have worked to get books online for far longer than Google – and Google's 'settlement' could hurt our efforts," he wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "A major part of our efforts have concentrated on changing the law so everyone would benefit."
"There is an alternative, and they know it — orphan works legislation — that up until the last session of Congress had been working its way through the house and senate. It was not perfect, but was getting close to what we need. Best yet, it passed one house — at least until Google effectively sideswiped the process with their settlement proposal."
In his editorial, Brin admitted that Google would have exclusive rights over such material, at least in the short term - but then suggested that Google's deal would actually help attempts to force through a legislative change.
"While new projects will not immediately have the same rights to orphan works, the agreement will be a beacon of compromise in case of a similar lawsuit, and it will serve as a precedent for orphan works legislation, which Google has always supported and will continue to support.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/09/google-books-brin
OpEd: A Library to Last Forever; New York Times, 10/9/09
Sergey Brin, New York Times; OpEd: A Library to Last Forever:
"In the Insurance Year Book 1880-1881, which I found on Google Books, Cornelius Walford chronicles the destruction of dozens of libraries and millions of books, in the hope that such a record will “impress the necessity of something being done” to preserve them. The famous library at Alexandria burned three times, in 48 B.C., A.D. 273 and A.D. 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection.
I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise. More important, even if our cultural heritage stays intact in the world’s foremost libraries, it is effectively lost if no one can access it easily. Many companies, libraries and organizations will play a role in saving and making available the works of the 20th century. Together, authors, publishers and Google are taking just one step toward this goal, but it’s an important step. Let’s not miss this opportunity."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09brin.html
"In the Insurance Year Book 1880-1881, which I found on Google Books, Cornelius Walford chronicles the destruction of dozens of libraries and millions of books, in the hope that such a record will “impress the necessity of something being done” to preserve them. The famous library at Alexandria burned three times, in 48 B.C., A.D. 273 and A.D. 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection.
I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise. More important, even if our cultural heritage stays intact in the world’s foremost libraries, it is effectively lost if no one can access it easily. Many companies, libraries and organizations will play a role in saving and making available the works of the 20th century. Together, authors, publishers and Google are taking just one step toward this goal, but it’s an important step. Let’s not miss this opportunity."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09brin.html
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Fighting for the right to download: Sydney Morning Herald, 10/9/09
Jarrad Mitchell, Sydney Morning Herald; Fighting for the right to download:
"It is about time the Australian public rose from the couch. Seemingly overnight, technology has once again made criminals of the majority (recording TV shows was technically illegal until 2006). It might have happened slowly in your household, or perhaps you've been a pirate for a while now.
If, after reading the above passage, you're thinking, “Criminal? Not me!” then listen up: we're all criminals now.
If you don't believe me, just go to the movies where you'll see a hip little advertisement that talks about how, while you wouldn't steal a car, downloading pirated movies is a crime.
Now I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that any law that renders the vast majority of the public criminal is just a little bit ridiculous. But surely there is a good reason for all this hype, right? The answer lies in exploring why we even have copyright."
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/fighting-for-the-right-to-download-20091009-gpnl.html
"It is about time the Australian public rose from the couch. Seemingly overnight, technology has once again made criminals of the majority (recording TV shows was technically illegal until 2006). It might have happened slowly in your household, or perhaps you've been a pirate for a while now.
If, after reading the above passage, you're thinking, “Criminal? Not me!” then listen up: we're all criminals now.
If you don't believe me, just go to the movies where you'll see a hip little advertisement that talks about how, while you wouldn't steal a car, downloading pirated movies is a crime.
Now I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that any law that renders the vast majority of the public criminal is just a little bit ridiculous. But surely there is a good reason for all this hype, right? The answer lies in exploring why we even have copyright."
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/fighting-for-the-right-to-download-20091009-gpnl.html
Japan court acquits file-share software creator; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/8/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Japan court acquits file-share software creator:
"A Japanese high court on Thursday acquitted the creator of a popular file-sharing software program of copyright violations, overturning an earlier conviction.
"It was a very fair judgement," Isamu Kaneko, the 39-year-old developer of the Winny "peer-to-peer" program, told reporters after the Osaka High Court in western Japan handed down the verdict.
"This will obviously have a good impact" on software development, he said.
Winny, which Kaneko had made available on his website, enables users to exchange files such as computer games and movies over the Internet for free, making Kaneko a cyberspace icon in Japan.
He had pleaded not guilty, arguing that holding programmers responsible for copyright infringement would hamper technological development.
In December 2006, the Kyoto District Court had convicted Kaneko, ruling that he made the software available on the Internet while knowing it would be widely used for illegal purposes.
The Kyoto court had refused a call from prosecutors for a one-year prison sentence but fined him 1.5 million yen (17,000 US dollars) in Japan's first ruling on file-sharing software.
Chief judge Masazo Ogura at the Osaka High Court said Thursday that Kaneko had been aware of the possibility that the software might be used for inappropriate purposes but had not recommended users to do so."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/japan-court-acquits-fileshare-software-creator-20091008-goql.html
"A Japanese high court on Thursday acquitted the creator of a popular file-sharing software program of copyright violations, overturning an earlier conviction.
"It was a very fair judgement," Isamu Kaneko, the 39-year-old developer of the Winny "peer-to-peer" program, told reporters after the Osaka High Court in western Japan handed down the verdict.
"This will obviously have a good impact" on software development, he said.
Winny, which Kaneko had made available on his website, enables users to exchange files such as computer games and movies over the Internet for free, making Kaneko a cyberspace icon in Japan.
He had pleaded not guilty, arguing that holding programmers responsible for copyright infringement would hamper technological development.
In December 2006, the Kyoto District Court had convicted Kaneko, ruling that he made the software available on the Internet while knowing it would be widely used for illegal purposes.
The Kyoto court had refused a call from prosecutors for a one-year prison sentence but fined him 1.5 million yen (17,000 US dollars) in Japan's first ruling on file-sharing software.
Chief judge Masazo Ogura at the Osaka High Court said Thursday that Kaneko had been aware of the possibility that the software might be used for inappropriate purposes but had not recommended users to do so."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/japan-court-acquits-fileshare-software-creator-20091008-goql.html
iiNet launches counter attack in copyright case; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/8/09
Miriam Steffens, Sydney Morning Herald; iiNet launches counter attack in copyright case:
"IN THE movie industry's landmark case over illegal film downloads, internet service provider iiNet has launched its counter-attack, calling the movie studios' claims of tens of thousands of copyright infringements over its network ''highly exaggerated'' and ''out of kilter''.
As hearings went into their second day in the Federal Court yesterday, iiNet's lawyer, Richard Cobden, SC, outlined the Perth internet company's line of defence. Lambasting the film studios' ''exuberant rhetoric,'' iiNet maintains it was not doing anything different from its larger rivals such as Telstra and Optus selling access to the internet, and had done nothing that would amount to willingly allowing its customers to download pirated movies."
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/iinet-launches-counter-attack-in-copyright-case-20091008-gnv5.html
"IN THE movie industry's landmark case over illegal film downloads, internet service provider iiNet has launched its counter-attack, calling the movie studios' claims of tens of thousands of copyright infringements over its network ''highly exaggerated'' and ''out of kilter''.
As hearings went into their second day in the Federal Court yesterday, iiNet's lawyer, Richard Cobden, SC, outlined the Perth internet company's line of defence. Lambasting the film studios' ''exuberant rhetoric,'' iiNet maintains it was not doing anything different from its larger rivals such as Telstra and Optus selling access to the internet, and had done nothing that would amount to willingly allowing its customers to download pirated movies."
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/iinet-launches-counter-attack-in-copyright-case-20091008-gnv5.html
YouTube pacts heighten copyright vigilance; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/8/09
Sydney Morning Herald; YouTube pacts heighten copyright vigilance:
"YouTube on Wednesday said it will be able to quickly track snippets from live television shows thanks to new partnerships with three broadcast video delivery specialty firms.
Google has been working to assuage piracy worries of film and television studios since the Mountain View, California, Internet powerhouse bought YouTube in 2006 in a deal valued at 1.65 billion US dollars.
YouTube said alliances with broadcast video delivery and management titans Harmonic, Telestream, and Digital Rapids will let it speedily recognize content from live events posted at the video-sharing service.
Many media companies will be able to give YouTube reference files, or "fingerprints," of video almost as soon as it is produced so fresh content can be identified, product manager George Salem said in an official blog post.
"Our partners will be able to provide us with reference files in a few minutes, allowing them to block, leave up, or monetize videos of their live events on YouTube in near real time," Salem said."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/youtube-pacts-heighten-copyright-vigilance-20091008-gnio.html
"YouTube on Wednesday said it will be able to quickly track snippets from live television shows thanks to new partnerships with three broadcast video delivery specialty firms.
Google has been working to assuage piracy worries of film and television studios since the Mountain View, California, Internet powerhouse bought YouTube in 2006 in a deal valued at 1.65 billion US dollars.
YouTube said alliances with broadcast video delivery and management titans Harmonic, Telestream, and Digital Rapids will let it speedily recognize content from live events posted at the video-sharing service.
Many media companies will be able to give YouTube reference files, or "fingerprints," of video almost as soon as it is produced so fresh content can be identified, product manager George Salem said in an official blog post.
"Our partners will be able to provide us with reference files in a few minutes, allowing them to block, leave up, or monetize videos of their live events on YouTube in near real time," Salem said."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/youtube-pacts-heighten-copyright-vigilance-20091008-gnio.html
Illegal downloads case gets its own medicine; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/7/09
Miriam Steffens, Sydney Morning Herald; Illegal downloads case gets its own medicine:
THE opening salvo in the landmark case by Australian and US film studios against the internet access provider iiNet over illegal film downloads featured gunshots in the Federal Court yesterday when lawyers showed a bank robbery scene from The Dark Knight to illustrate the copyright piracy the company is alleged to allow its customers.
Tony Bannon, SC, barrister for the 34 claimants, which include Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, Village Roadshow and Kerry Stokes's Seven Network, said in his opening submission that a year of investigations into iiNet showed 94,942 instances where users made unauthorised copies of titles such as Harry Potter and the Batman movies available using file-sharing software such as BitTorrent.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/illegal-downloads-case-gets-its-own-medicine-20091006-gldl.html
THE opening salvo in the landmark case by Australian and US film studios against the internet access provider iiNet over illegal film downloads featured gunshots in the Federal Court yesterday when lawyers showed a bank robbery scene from The Dark Knight to illustrate the copyright piracy the company is alleged to allow its customers.
Tony Bannon, SC, barrister for the 34 claimants, which include Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, Village Roadshow and Kerry Stokes's Seven Network, said in his opening submission that a year of investigations into iiNet showed 94,942 instances where users made unauthorised copies of titles such as Harry Potter and the Batman movies available using file-sharing software such as BitTorrent.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/illegal-downloads-case-gets-its-own-medicine-20091006-gldl.html
ISP takes on Hollywood studios over copyright; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/7/09
Miriam Steffens, Sydney Morning Herald; ISP takes on Hollywood studios over copyright:
"IN THE movie industry's landmark case over illegal film downloads, internet service provider iiNet has launched its counter-attack, calling the movie studios' claims of tens of thousands of copyright infringements over its network ''highly exaggerated'' and ''out of kilter''.
As hearings went into their second day in the Federal Court yesterday, iiNet's lawyer, Richard Cobden, SC, outlined the Perth internet company's line of defence. Lambasting the film studios' ''exuberant rhetoric,'' iiNet maintains it was not doing anything different from its larger rivals such as Telstra and Optus selling access to the internet, and had done nothing that would amount to willingly allowing its customers to download pirated movies.
Thirty-four entertainment companies, including Hollywood studios Paramount, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox as well as Australia's Village Roadshow and Kerry Stokes's Seven Network, have accused the company of authorising copyright infringements by not cutting off accounts of users who repeatedly downloaded illegal copies of films and TV programs through file-sharing software such as BitTorrent.
The court battle is not only critical to the future of iiNet, but to the internet industry as a whole, which is seeking to avoid having to police its users to prevent illegal downloading."
http://www.smh.com.au/business/isp-takes-on-hollywood-studios-over-copyright-20091007-gn5a.html
"IN THE movie industry's landmark case over illegal film downloads, internet service provider iiNet has launched its counter-attack, calling the movie studios' claims of tens of thousands of copyright infringements over its network ''highly exaggerated'' and ''out of kilter''.
As hearings went into their second day in the Federal Court yesterday, iiNet's lawyer, Richard Cobden, SC, outlined the Perth internet company's line of defence. Lambasting the film studios' ''exuberant rhetoric,'' iiNet maintains it was not doing anything different from its larger rivals such as Telstra and Optus selling access to the internet, and had done nothing that would amount to willingly allowing its customers to download pirated movies.
Thirty-four entertainment companies, including Hollywood studios Paramount, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox as well as Australia's Village Roadshow and Kerry Stokes's Seven Network, have accused the company of authorising copyright infringements by not cutting off accounts of users who repeatedly downloaded illegal copies of films and TV programs through file-sharing software such as BitTorrent.
The court battle is not only critical to the future of iiNet, but to the internet industry as a whole, which is seeking to avoid having to police its users to prevent illegal downloading."
http://www.smh.com.au/business/isp-takes-on-hollywood-studios-over-copyright-20091007-gn5a.html
Amazon settles suit over deleted Orwell books; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/2/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Amazon settles suit over deleted Orwell books:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/amazon-settles-suit-over-deleted-orwell-books-20091002-gey5.html
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/amazon-settles-suit-over-deleted-orwell-books-20091002-gey5.html
Shorter copyright would free creativity; Guardian, 10/7/09
Victor Keegan, Guardian; Shorter copyright would free creativity:
"Disney made its early money by reworking ideas in the public domain such as Cinderella and the fairytales of the brothers Grimm – themselves collectors rather than originators of folk tales. It then turned turtle and used copyright to boost profits without having to do anything. But suppose copyright had been restricted to 20 years, as for patents?...
If we want to nurture Britain's amazing creative talents then we must have much shorter copyrights to bring into the public domain millions of orphaned books to reduce prices and to enable music, books and films to be enjoyed and reworked by others. In Shakespeare's time, when there was no protection for copyright at all, writers stole passages and ideas from each other. Today's copyright laws would have suffocated much Elizabethan and Jacobean creativity. Artists who claim that income from books and records is their pension are deluded. The vast majority of income from books and records comes immediately after publication."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term
"Disney made its early money by reworking ideas in the public domain such as Cinderella and the fairytales of the brothers Grimm – themselves collectors rather than originators of folk tales. It then turned turtle and used copyright to boost profits without having to do anything. But suppose copyright had been restricted to 20 years, as for patents?...
If we want to nurture Britain's amazing creative talents then we must have much shorter copyrights to bring into the public domain millions of orphaned books to reduce prices and to enable music, books and films to be enjoyed and reworked by others. In Shakespeare's time, when there was no protection for copyright at all, writers stole passages and ideas from each other. Today's copyright laws would have suffocated much Elizabethan and Jacobean creativity. Artists who claim that income from books and records is their pension are deluded. The vast majority of income from books and records comes immediately after publication."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Judge Sets Nov. 9 Deadline For Revised Google Book Settlement; New York Times, 10/7/09
New York Times; Judge Sets Nov. 9 Deadline For Revised Google Book Settlement:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/judge-sets-nov-9-deadline-for-revised-google-book-settlement/?scp=4&sq=google%20books&st=cse
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/judge-sets-nov-9-deadline-for-revised-google-book-settlement/?scp=4&sq=google%20books&st=cse
In E-Books, It’s an Army vs. Google; New York Times, 10/7/09
Miguel Helft, New York Times; In E-Books, It’s an Army vs. Google:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/technology/internet/07google.html?scp=5&sq=google%20books&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/technology/internet/07google.html?scp=5&sq=google%20books&st=cse
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Essay: Advantage Google; New York Times, 10/4/09
Lewis Hyde, New York Times; Essay: Advantage Google:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/books/review/Hyde-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=google&st=cse&scp=4
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/books/review/Hyde-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=google&st=cse&scp=4
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Focusing In On The Value: Google Books Provides An Amazing Resource; TechDirt, 10/2/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Focusing In On The Value: Google Books Provides An Amazing Resource:
"With all of the fighting over the Google Book settlement, it seems that an awful lot of people have lost sight of the key issue, which is that the tool itself, Google's Book Search, is amazing. "
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091002/0331316405.shtml
"With all of the fighting over the Google Book settlement, it seems that an awful lot of people have lost sight of the key issue, which is that the tool itself, Google's Book Search, is amazing. "
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091002/0331316405.shtml
Copyright Dispute Ensnares Creator of Copyright Shield; Wall Street Journal, 10/1/09
Geoffrey A. Fowler, Wall Street Journal; Copyright Dispute Ensnares Creator of Copyright Shield:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125435298036654255.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125435298036654255.html
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
‘Winnie-The-Pooh’ Suit Is Dismissed; New York Times, 9/30/09
Dave Itzkoff, New York Times; ‘Winnie-The-Pooh’ Suit Is Dismissed:
"A longstanding lawsuit involving royalties for the characters of Winnie-the-Pooh and his lovable, lucrative friends from the Hundred Acre Wood was dismissed in federal district court in Los Angeles, Reuters reported. In a legal dispute that dates to 1991, the estate of Stephen Slesinger, the producer who first acquired licensing rights to the Pooh works and characters from A. A. Milne in 1930, was suing for more than $700 million in royalties it says it was owed by the Walt Disney Company, which acquired the rights from Stephen Slesinger Inc. in 1961. When lower courts threw out that case after the misconduct of a private investigator, Mr. Slesinger’s heirs filed a copyright-infringement suit against Disney. On Friday Judge Florence-Marie Cooper ruled that Stephen Slesinger Inc. “transferred all of its rights in the Pooh works to Disney, and may not now claim infringement of any retained rights.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/arts/30arts-WINNIETHEPOO_BRF.html?scp=2&sq=winnie&st=cse
"A longstanding lawsuit involving royalties for the characters of Winnie-the-Pooh and his lovable, lucrative friends from the Hundred Acre Wood was dismissed in federal district court in Los Angeles, Reuters reported. In a legal dispute that dates to 1991, the estate of Stephen Slesinger, the producer who first acquired licensing rights to the Pooh works and characters from A. A. Milne in 1930, was suing for more than $700 million in royalties it says it was owed by the Walt Disney Company, which acquired the rights from Stephen Slesinger Inc. in 1961. When lower courts threw out that case after the misconduct of a private investigator, Mr. Slesinger’s heirs filed a copyright-infringement suit against Disney. On Friday Judge Florence-Marie Cooper ruled that Stephen Slesinger Inc. “transferred all of its rights in the Pooh works to Disney, and may not now claim infringement of any retained rights.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/arts/30arts-WINNIETHEPOO_BRF.html?scp=2&sq=winnie&st=cse
Record Stores: Out of Sight, Not Obsolete; New York Times, 9/30/09
Ben Sisario, New York Times; Record Stores: Out of Sight, Not Obsolete:
"To survive in a market in which most products are just a click away, the dealers serve micro-niches, catering to ever fewer but more discriminating customers. One Vinylmania shopper, Jusoong Sun, 47, said he preferred the tactile and social aspects of nonvirtual retail: “To me the whole experience of buying is coming here and feeling the record, putting on the turntable. It’s still tangible.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/arts/music/30private.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=vinyl&st=cse
"To survive in a market in which most products are just a click away, the dealers serve micro-niches, catering to ever fewer but more discriminating customers. One Vinylmania shopper, Jusoong Sun, 47, said he preferred the tactile and social aspects of nonvirtual retail: “To me the whole experience of buying is coming here and feeling the record, putting on the turntable. It’s still tangible.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/arts/music/30private.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=vinyl&st=cse
Warner Music Videos to Return to YouTube; New York Times, 9/29/09
Brian Stelter, New York Times; Warner Music Videos to Return to YouTube:
"Ending a nine-month standoff, YouTube said Tuesday that it had reached a new agreement with Warner Music Group that would return the label’s music videos to the world’s largest video Web site.
Warner Music had demanded that its videos be removed last December after licensing talks stalled with YouTube, a unit of Google. The new deal means that YouTube has deals with the country’s four major record labels and four major publishers."
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/warner-music-videos-to-return-to-youtube/?scp=2&sq=youtube&st=cse
"Ending a nine-month standoff, YouTube said Tuesday that it had reached a new agreement with Warner Music Group that would return the label’s music videos to the world’s largest video Web site.
Warner Music had demanded that its videos be removed last December after licensing talks stalled with YouTube, a unit of Google. The new deal means that YouTube has deals with the country’s four major record labels and four major publishers."
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/warner-music-videos-to-return-to-youtube/?scp=2&sq=youtube&st=cse
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Public morals and private property; Economist, 92/4/09
Economist; Public morals and private property:
Chinese websites come to the defence of Western intellectual property
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14517414
Chinese websites come to the defence of Western intellectual property
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14517414
Friday, September 25, 2009
In Defense Of Google Books; Forbes, 9/25/09
Quentin Hardy, Forbes; In Defense Of Google Books:
Go ahead and hate Google, but it guaranteed our heritage a future.
"If Google's actions seem entirely wrong, consider how we would feel if, in response to all the criticism, Google simply destroyed the 10 million-volume corpus. We would feel an almost irrevocable loss.
The agreement will be reached. Most likely it will be tentative, and subject to review in a few years. It will not be perfect. But if Google had not made its audacious move, we could be heading into the future with a stunted and partial heritage."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/25/books-copyright-internet-intelligent-technology-google.html
Go ahead and hate Google, but it guaranteed our heritage a future.
"If Google's actions seem entirely wrong, consider how we would feel if, in response to all the criticism, Google simply destroyed the 10 million-volume corpus. We would feel an almost irrevocable loss.
The agreement will be reached. Most likely it will be tentative, and subject to review in a few years. It will not be perfect. But if Google had not made its audacious move, we could be heading into the future with a stunted and partial heritage."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/25/books-copyright-internet-intelligent-technology-google.html
Unpacking The Kirby Reclamation Case; Comic Book Resources, 9/25/09
Kiel Phegley, Comic Book Resources; Unpacking The Kirby Reclamation Case:
"From the Fantastic Four to Iron Man and even to Spider-Man (a character most comics historians generally don't attribute to Kirby's pen beyond a possible hand in design), almost the entirety of what many fans both hardcore and casual would consider the core of the Marvel Universe are named in the papers, which were served both to Marvel Entertainment, their prospective buyer the Disney Corporation and Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and more companies who have profited from major adaptations of the Marvel characters.
However, while the idea that the Kirby estate may regain a piece of the copyrights for the superheroes has kept talk and speculation high, only a small part of the conversation has gotten to the heart of what's at stake in the filing. While part of this comes from fact that very little about the case has made it to the public eye just yet (when reached via e-mail by CBR, the Kirby's attorney Marc Toberoff declined to comment), many of the issues surrounding copyright law and this case in particular can be confusing to those without law degrees. "In reading some of the articles that are out there, I keep wanting to send notes to people saying, 'No, that's not right,'" laughed intellectual property lawyer and comic rights expert Michael Lovitz of Los Angeles firm Buchalter Nemer. CBR contacted Lovitz (who aside from hosting the annual "Comic Book Law School" panels at Comic-Con International in San Diego also represents comic artists like Colleen Doran and Bob Layton) to help parse out the details of the Kirbys' attempt at reclaiming rights from Marvel.
Lovitz stressed that, at this point, there is no lawsuit involved in the proceedings, and for now neither side has to do much of anything for a number of years. The notice of reclamation filed by the Kirby family only indicates that they do intend to lay claim to a share of the Marvel characters once the initial period of copyright would have ended, which for the individual heroes and villains in question could fall somewhere between 2017 and 2019. "And then they could exercise their rights for the remainder of the extended period [if they win]. They could sell it to the same people, sell it to someone else or do something with it themselves."
"The way the trademark statute is set up, each time the law was rewritten and the term of protection extended, there was an addition that said, 'We recognize that when a creator goes to a big company and sells a property to them, they're not in the best bargaining position,'" Lovitz explained, citing the current case of Jerry Siegel's family over the rights to he and Joe Shuster's Superman as a prime example. "They made an original bargain back then for 56 years of protection. If I write a novel and sell it to [you as a company] back in the '30s, I know the maximum amount of time you'll be able to capitalize on it is 56 years, and I take that into consideration when I make the bargain with you. What the people who lobbied congress said was, 'That's fine, but you're extending from 56 to 75 and then later 95 years of protection for those older works. They only bargained for 56, so you should give the original creators the ability to terminate the transfer.' That's what's going on here: a termination of the transfer of rights."
The major difference between the Kirby case and the Siegel case (which, since its moved into an actual lawsuit with Warner Brothers, has been handled with much success by Toberoff) is that in the case of Superman no one ever argued that Siegel and Shuster had not created the character independently and then sold it to DC....
However, the Kirby case holds many more complications as the process of figuring out what exactly the family might be owed involves placing a concrete legal answer onto one of the great comic fan debates of all time: Who exactly created what and when at Marvel Comics?...
Ultimately, the future of the legal rights of Jack Kirby and Marvel both will make for exciting reading for comics fans and legal types, especially since the future may only hold more and more cases of creators and their families trying to reclaim their classic characters. "You always read these little comments of people saying, 'How interesting that in ten years you could have Time Warner doing a Spider-Man movie and Disney doing a Superman movie?' " laughed Lovitz. "And how ironic that the company that was one of the biggest proponents of the copyright extension, Disney, may find itself being burned because of those extensions that gave in the rights of reversion?""
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=23063
"From the Fantastic Four to Iron Man and even to Spider-Man (a character most comics historians generally don't attribute to Kirby's pen beyond a possible hand in design), almost the entirety of what many fans both hardcore and casual would consider the core of the Marvel Universe are named in the papers, which were served both to Marvel Entertainment, their prospective buyer the Disney Corporation and Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures and more companies who have profited from major adaptations of the Marvel characters.
However, while the idea that the Kirby estate may regain a piece of the copyrights for the superheroes has kept talk and speculation high, only a small part of the conversation has gotten to the heart of what's at stake in the filing. While part of this comes from fact that very little about the case has made it to the public eye just yet (when reached via e-mail by CBR, the Kirby's attorney Marc Toberoff declined to comment), many of the issues surrounding copyright law and this case in particular can be confusing to those without law degrees. "In reading some of the articles that are out there, I keep wanting to send notes to people saying, 'No, that's not right,'" laughed intellectual property lawyer and comic rights expert Michael Lovitz of Los Angeles firm Buchalter Nemer. CBR contacted Lovitz (who aside from hosting the annual "Comic Book Law School" panels at Comic-Con International in San Diego also represents comic artists like Colleen Doran and Bob Layton) to help parse out the details of the Kirbys' attempt at reclaiming rights from Marvel.
Lovitz stressed that, at this point, there is no lawsuit involved in the proceedings, and for now neither side has to do much of anything for a number of years. The notice of reclamation filed by the Kirby family only indicates that they do intend to lay claim to a share of the Marvel characters once the initial period of copyright would have ended, which for the individual heroes and villains in question could fall somewhere between 2017 and 2019. "And then they could exercise their rights for the remainder of the extended period [if they win]. They could sell it to the same people, sell it to someone else or do something with it themselves."
"The way the trademark statute is set up, each time the law was rewritten and the term of protection extended, there was an addition that said, 'We recognize that when a creator goes to a big company and sells a property to them, they're not in the best bargaining position,'" Lovitz explained, citing the current case of Jerry Siegel's family over the rights to he and Joe Shuster's Superman as a prime example. "They made an original bargain back then for 56 years of protection. If I write a novel and sell it to [you as a company] back in the '30s, I know the maximum amount of time you'll be able to capitalize on it is 56 years, and I take that into consideration when I make the bargain with you. What the people who lobbied congress said was, 'That's fine, but you're extending from 56 to 75 and then later 95 years of protection for those older works. They only bargained for 56, so you should give the original creators the ability to terminate the transfer.' That's what's going on here: a termination of the transfer of rights."
The major difference between the Kirby case and the Siegel case (which, since its moved into an actual lawsuit with Warner Brothers, has been handled with much success by Toberoff) is that in the case of Superman no one ever argued that Siegel and Shuster had not created the character independently and then sold it to DC....
However, the Kirby case holds many more complications as the process of figuring out what exactly the family might be owed involves placing a concrete legal answer onto one of the great comic fan debates of all time: Who exactly created what and when at Marvel Comics?...
Ultimately, the future of the legal rights of Jack Kirby and Marvel both will make for exciting reading for comics fans and legal types, especially since the future may only hold more and more cases of creators and their families trying to reclaim their classic characters. "You always read these little comments of people saying, 'How interesting that in ten years you could have Time Warner doing a Spider-Man movie and Disney doing a Superman movie?' " laughed Lovitz. "And how ironic that the company that was one of the biggest proponents of the copyright extension, Disney, may find itself being burned because of those extensions that gave in the rights of reversion?""
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=23063
Google Books deal forces us to rethink copyright; Guardian, 9/25/09
Nick Harkaway, Guardian; Google Books deal forces us to rethink copyright:
The Google Books deal has been postponed: good. But what we really need is copyright reform
"Last Friday, the US Department of Justice gave the Google Books settlement a clip across the ear. The DoJ filing basically told the parties they were overreaching the bounds of a settlement, effectively creating new law. It also waved the anti-trust stick. The settlement as we knew it now seems to be off the table.
In one sense I'm relieved. I opted out, which felt like a huge decision, and now it looks as if things are less cut and dried than I feared they might be. I'm also relieved that the good practice of copyright is being protected. On the other hand, I'm disappointed. Google's library plan was staggering and exciting – it wasn't the idea I objected to, but the method."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/sep/25/google-books-copyright
The Google Books deal has been postponed: good. But what we really need is copyright reform
"Last Friday, the US Department of Justice gave the Google Books settlement a clip across the ear. The DoJ filing basically told the parties they were overreaching the bounds of a settlement, effectively creating new law. It also waved the anti-trust stick. The settlement as we knew it now seems to be off the table.
In one sense I'm relieved. I opted out, which felt like a huge decision, and now it looks as if things are less cut and dried than I feared they might be. I'm also relieved that the good practice of copyright is being protected. On the other hand, I'm disappointed. Google's library plan was staggering and exciting – it wasn't the idea I objected to, but the method."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/sep/25/google-books-copyright
Judge delays Google books hearing; BBC News, 9/25/09
Maggie Shiels, BBC News; Judge delays Google books hearing:
""Clearly voices such as ours had an impact on Judge Chin," wrote consumer watchdog advocate John Simpson in an email to BBC News.
"There was no way the proposed settlement could go forward. We believe that the proper place to solve many of the case's thorniest problems, such as that of orphan books, is in Congress because it is important to build digital libraries."
Orphan books - of which there are thought to be five million - are titles where the authors cannot be found.
Judge Chin has called for a "status conference" to be held on 7 October - the original date for the hearing - to determine "how to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8274115.stm
""Clearly voices such as ours had an impact on Judge Chin," wrote consumer watchdog advocate John Simpson in an email to BBC News.
"There was no way the proposed settlement could go forward. We believe that the proper place to solve many of the case's thorniest problems, such as that of orphan books, is in Congress because it is important to build digital libraries."
Orphan books - of which there are thought to be five million - are titles where the authors cannot be found.
Judge Chin has called for a "status conference" to be held on 7 October - the original date for the hearing - to determine "how to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8274115.stm
Thursday, September 24, 2009
French publishers take Google to court for 'forgery'; AVP, 9/24/09
Dominique Chabrol, AVP; French publishers take Google to court for 'forgery':
"France's Seuil publishing house filed its suit accusing Google France and Google inc. of forgery back in June 2006 but had to wait until Thursday before the case finally reached a courtroom.
It reckons that up to 4,000 works published by the group have been digitized by Google without his consent.
The SNE estimates that about 100,000 French books that are still under copyright have been digitized by the Internet company."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hyDbbeAx_jy90Oq6FAzOmiGTj4-A
"France's Seuil publishing house filed its suit accusing Google France and Google inc. of forgery back in June 2006 but had to wait until Thursday before the case finally reached a courtroom.
It reckons that up to 4,000 works published by the group have been digitized by Google without his consent.
The SNE estimates that about 100,000 French books that are still under copyright have been digitized by the Internet company."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hyDbbeAx_jy90Oq6FAzOmiGTj4-A
Google Books Settlement Delayed Indefinitely; New York Times Bits Blog, 9/24/09
Miguel Helft, Google Books Settlement Delayed Indefinitely; Google Books Settlement Delayed Indefinitely:
"Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to delay an Oct. 7 hearing on the settlement, which would pave the way for Google to create an immense digital library and bookstore. The motion was filed earlier this week by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, the plaintiffs in the case, and was unopposed by Google, the defendant.
Judge Chin said that it made no sense to hold a hearing on the current settlement since the parties have indicated that they are negotiating significant changes to it."
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/google-books-settlement-delayed-indefinitely/?hpw
"Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to delay an Oct. 7 hearing on the settlement, which would pave the way for Google to create an immense digital library and bookstore. The motion was filed earlier this week by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, the plaintiffs in the case, and was unopposed by Google, the defendant.
Judge Chin said that it made no sense to hold a hearing on the current settlement since the parties have indicated that they are negotiating significant changes to it."
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/google-books-settlement-delayed-indefinitely/?hpw
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Free the Orphans: Are we being played for fools in Google Books play?; ZDNet, 9/23/09
Richard Koman, ZDNet; Free the Orphans: Are we being played for fools in Google Books play?:
"I’m reposting an insightful piece about the pull-back of the Google Books settlement by Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive. Brewster was among the first to cry foul over the deal and he has been a leading voice throughout the full debate."
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5475
"I’m reposting an insightful piece about the pull-back of the Google Books settlement by Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive. Brewster was among the first to cry foul over the deal and he has been a leading voice throughout the full debate."
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5475
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
New deal sought in dispute over Google book plan; Associated Press, 9/22/09
Larry Neumeister, Associated Press; New deal sought in dispute over Google book plan:
"The government encouraged an improved settlement, saying it "has the potential to breathe life into millions of works that are now effectively off limits to the public."
Lawyers for the authors and publishers said in court papers Tuesday that, "as the United States government put it, no one wants `the opportunity or momentum to be lost.'"
They urged Chin to delay a hearing scheduled for Oct. 7, saying that a new agreement may take away some objections among the roughly 400 opinions, both pro and con, which were filed with Chin by a deadline earlier this month...
Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocacy group that has asked the court to reject the settlement, said in a statement that key copyright issues should be settled by Congress in a fully public process.
"Essentially Google and the authors and publishers groups are back at square one and must re-negotiate the deal," said John M. Simpson, a consumer advocate with Consumer Watchdog who was one of eight witnesses to testify about the deal to the House Judiciary Committee."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9ASM9G00
"The government encouraged an improved settlement, saying it "has the potential to breathe life into millions of works that are now effectively off limits to the public."
Lawyers for the authors and publishers said in court papers Tuesday that, "as the United States government put it, no one wants `the opportunity or momentum to be lost.'"
They urged Chin to delay a hearing scheduled for Oct. 7, saying that a new agreement may take away some objections among the roughly 400 opinions, both pro and con, which were filed with Chin by a deadline earlier this month...
Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocacy group that has asked the court to reject the settlement, said in a statement that key copyright issues should be settled by Congress in a fully public process.
"Essentially Google and the authors and publishers groups are back at square one and must re-negotiate the deal," said John M. Simpson, a consumer advocate with Consumer Watchdog who was one of eight witnesses to testify about the deal to the House Judiciary Committee."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9ASM9G00
Confirmed: Jack Kirby's heirs want a piece of Spider-Man; Comic Book Resources, 9/22/09
Kevin Melrose, Comic Book Resources; Confirmed: Jack Kirby's heirs want a piece of Spider-Man:
"According to the Heat Vision report, Kirby's heirs seek to recapture a share of the copyright to characters and story elements that appeared in Amazing Fantasy #15 -- Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Flash Thompson, etc. -- plus characters and concepts like J. Jonah Jameson, the Daily Bugle, Chameleon, the Tinkerer and the Lizard, most of which debuted months later in issues of The Amazing Spider-Man. (The Daily Bugle first appeared in Fantastic Four #2.)
If the Kirby children are successful, they would reclaim their father's portion of the copyright to key characters and concepts from the Marvel Universe as early as 2017 for the Fantastic Four. In most cases, that would seem to mean co-ownership with Marvel, as Lee agreed to waive claim to any of the characters. With Spider-Man, one-third ownership could be possible if the Kirbys were to prevail yet the judge recognized Ditko's interests."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/09/confirmed-jack-kirbys-heirs-want-a-piece-of-Spider-Man/
"According to the Heat Vision report, Kirby's heirs seek to recapture a share of the copyright to characters and story elements that appeared in Amazing Fantasy #15 -- Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Flash Thompson, etc. -- plus characters and concepts like J. Jonah Jameson, the Daily Bugle, Chameleon, the Tinkerer and the Lizard, most of which debuted months later in issues of The Amazing Spider-Man. (The Daily Bugle first appeared in Fantastic Four #2.)
If the Kirby children are successful, they would reclaim their father's portion of the copyright to key characters and concepts from the Marvel Universe as early as 2017 for the Fantastic Four. In most cases, that would seem to mean co-ownership with Marvel, as Lee agreed to waive claim to any of the characters. With Spider-Man, one-third ownership could be possible if the Kirbys were to prevail yet the judge recognized Ditko's interests."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/09/confirmed-jack-kirbys-heirs-want-a-piece-of-Spider-Man/
Monday, September 21, 2009
Disney Faces Rights Issues Over Marvel; New York Times, 9/21/09
Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes, New York Times; Disney Faces Rights Issues Over Marvel:
"Walt Disney’s proposed $4 billion acquisition of Marvel Entertainment may come with a headache: newly filed claims challenging Marvel’s long-term rights to some of its superhero characters.
Heirs to the comic book artist Jack Kirby, a creator of characters and stories behind Marvel mainstays like “X-Men” and “Fantastic Four,” last week sent 45 notices of copyright termination to Marvel and Disney, as well as Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, and other companies that have been using the characters.
The notices expressed an intent to regain copyrights to some of Mr. Kirby’s creations as early as 2014, according to a statement disclosed on Sunday by Toberoff & Associates, a law firm in Los Angeles that helped win a court ruling last year returning a share of the copyright in Superman to heirs of one of the character’s creators, Jerome Siegel."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/business/21marvel.html?scp=1&sq=marvel&st=cse
"Walt Disney’s proposed $4 billion acquisition of Marvel Entertainment may come with a headache: newly filed claims challenging Marvel’s long-term rights to some of its superhero characters.
Heirs to the comic book artist Jack Kirby, a creator of characters and stories behind Marvel mainstays like “X-Men” and “Fantastic Four,” last week sent 45 notices of copyright termination to Marvel and Disney, as well as Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, and other companies that have been using the characters.
The notices expressed an intent to regain copyrights to some of Mr. Kirby’s creations as early as 2014, according to a statement disclosed on Sunday by Toberoff & Associates, a law firm in Los Angeles that helped win a court ruling last year returning a share of the copyright in Superman to heirs of one of the character’s creators, Jerome Siegel."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/business/21marvel.html?scp=1&sq=marvel&st=cse
Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement; New York Times, 9/21/09
Miguel Helft, New York Times; Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement:
"Legal experts say the new round of discussions, and the government’s intervention, are almost certain to delay an agreement that Google and the other parties were eager to see ratified quickly.
“The news out of this is that there are frantic negotiations going on in back rooms right now,” said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, which raised antitrust and other objections to the settlement. “The parties are scared enough to be talking seriously about changes, with each other and the government. The government is being the stern parent making them do it.”...
The Justice Department’s filing on Friday, echoing other critics, said that the settlement could give Google a virtually exclusive license to millions of out-of-print “orphan books,” whose rights holders were unknown or cannot be found, making it impossible for anyone else to build a comparable digital library; the interests of some class members, including authors of orphan works and foreign authors, might not have been adequately represented; and the efforts to notify class members about the settlement might have been inadequate.
But unlike some of the more strident opponents, who have argued that the settlement is so flawed that it must be rejected, the Justice Department said it hoped the accord could be fixed so that its benefits — most notable the unprecedented access to millions of out-of-print books it would offer — could be achieved. And it said the parties appeared willing to make changes to address such concerns."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/internet/21google.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=google&st=cse
"Legal experts say the new round of discussions, and the government’s intervention, are almost certain to delay an agreement that Google and the other parties were eager to see ratified quickly.
“The news out of this is that there are frantic negotiations going on in back rooms right now,” said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, which raised antitrust and other objections to the settlement. “The parties are scared enough to be talking seriously about changes, with each other and the government. The government is being the stern parent making them do it.”...
The Justice Department’s filing on Friday, echoing other critics, said that the settlement could give Google a virtually exclusive license to millions of out-of-print “orphan books,” whose rights holders were unknown or cannot be found, making it impossible for anyone else to build a comparable digital library; the interests of some class members, including authors of orphan works and foreign authors, might not have been adequately represented; and the efforts to notify class members about the settlement might have been inadequate.
But unlike some of the more strident opponents, who have argued that the settlement is so flawed that it must be rejected, the Justice Department said it hoped the accord could be fixed so that its benefits — most notable the unprecedented access to millions of out-of-print books it would offer — could be achieved. And it said the parties appeared willing to make changes to address such concerns."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/internet/21google.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=google&st=cse
Saturday, September 19, 2009
U.S. Urges Court to Reject Google Book Deal; New York Times, 9/18/09
Reuters via New York Times; U.S. Urges Court to Reject Google Book Deal:
"The U.S. Justice Department urged a New York court on Friday to reject Google's controversial deal with authors and publishers that would allow the search engine giant to create a massive online digital library.
The Justice Department said in a filing that the court "should reject the proposed settlement in its current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it so as to comply with ... copyright and antitrust laws...
A fairness hearing on the deal has been set for October 7 in the federal court in Manhattan.
The case is Authors Guild et al v Google Inc 05-08136 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)"
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/18/technology/tech-us-google-books.html
"The U.S. Justice Department urged a New York court on Friday to reject Google's controversial deal with authors and publishers that would allow the search engine giant to create a massive online digital library.
The Justice Department said in a filing that the court "should reject the proposed settlement in its current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it so as to comply with ... copyright and antitrust laws...
A fairness hearing on the deal has been set for October 7 in the federal court in Manhattan.
The case is Authors Guild et al v Google Inc 05-08136 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)"
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/18/technology/tech-us-google-books.html
Friday, September 18, 2009
2-Groups call for EU scrutiny of Google book deal; Reuters, 9/18/09
James Pethokoukis, Reuters; 2-Groups call for EU scrutiny of Google book deal:
"A hearing held by the European Commission on the matter onSept. 7 and attended by interested parties and Google officialsfailed to answer critics' questions, the groups said in aletter to EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy,Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes and six othercommissioners.
Signatories to the letter include Microsoft-sponsored
MSFT.0 lobbying group ICOMP, the German Publishers and
Booksellers Association, German lobbying group SuMa and CEPIC,
which represents about 1,000 picture associations, agencies and
libraries in Europe.
"We believe (the settlement) is unacceptable in its present
form as it violates the rights of copyright holders and authors
and would lead to a de facto monopoly," the groups said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSLI32506320090918
"A hearing held by the European Commission on the matter onSept. 7 and attended by interested parties and Google officialsfailed to answer critics' questions, the groups said in aletter to EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy,Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes and six othercommissioners.
Signatories to the letter include Microsoft-sponsored
MSFT.0 lobbying group ICOMP, the German Publishers and
Booksellers Association, German lobbying group SuMa and CEPIC,
which represents about 1,000 picture associations, agencies and
libraries in Europe.
"We believe (the settlement) is unacceptable in its present
form as it violates the rights of copyright holders and authors
and would lead to a de facto monopoly," the groups said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSLI32506320090918
Google Books, Congress, and Orphan Works; Center for Democracy & Technology, 9/17/09
David Sohn, Center for Democracy & Technology; Google Books, Congress, and Orphan Works:
"As a practical matter, it is far from clear when or if Congress would be able to produce a legislative solution to the latter problem. The politics of copyright are notoriously difficult. One response to that reality is to say, fine — if Congress can’t agree on what action to take, that just means there isn’t enough consensus on an appropriate path through the legal thicket, so Google should not be allowed to proceed. But that approach doesn’t much serve copyright law’s underlying purpose of promoting the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Allowing the online equivalent of a comprehensive library could offer tremendous benefits both to the reading public and to the many rightsholders who would welcome the chance for their out-of-print works to be rediscovered (and to generate some new revenue to boot.) The proposed settlement, while not perfect, offers a way to achieve that broadly beneficial goal. And if the settlement were to prompt Congress to roll up its sleeves and develop a forward-thinking policy approach, so much the better.
In short, yes, Congress should have the last word. But in the meantime, the Google Books settlement offers the chance to expand public access and increase exposure for many millions of out-of-print works in ways that generally should benefit readers and authors alike. That’s why CDT supports the settlement, albeit with the significant caveat that reader privacy concerns must be addressed. CDT detailed those privacy considerations in a report earlier this summer and in an amicus brief filed with the court in early September; links to those documents can be found here."
http://blog.cdt.org/2009/09/17/google-books-congress-and-orphan-works/
"As a practical matter, it is far from clear when or if Congress would be able to produce a legislative solution to the latter problem. The politics of copyright are notoriously difficult. One response to that reality is to say, fine — if Congress can’t agree on what action to take, that just means there isn’t enough consensus on an appropriate path through the legal thicket, so Google should not be allowed to proceed. But that approach doesn’t much serve copyright law’s underlying purpose of promoting the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Allowing the online equivalent of a comprehensive library could offer tremendous benefits both to the reading public and to the many rightsholders who would welcome the chance for their out-of-print works to be rediscovered (and to generate some new revenue to boot.) The proposed settlement, while not perfect, offers a way to achieve that broadly beneficial goal. And if the settlement were to prompt Congress to roll up its sleeves and develop a forward-thinking policy approach, so much the better.
In short, yes, Congress should have the last word. But in the meantime, the Google Books settlement offers the chance to expand public access and increase exposure for many millions of out-of-print works in ways that generally should benefit readers and authors alike. That’s why CDT supports the settlement, albeit with the significant caveat that reader privacy concerns must be addressed. CDT detailed those privacy considerations in a report earlier this summer and in an amicus brief filed with the court in early September; links to those documents can be found here."
http://blog.cdt.org/2009/09/17/google-books-congress-and-orphan-works/
Google’s Schmidt To Book Settlement Critics: What’s Your Solution?; Search Engine Land, 9/16/09
Danny Sullivan, Search Engine Land; Google’s Schmidt To Book Settlement Critics: What’s Your Solution?:
"The additional rights, the creation of a book registry and many other details have led some to feel that the entire landscape for digital book publishing and copyright is being changed so radically that a new process should start that involves more than a settlement between Google and the two primary groups that sued it, the Authors Guild and Association Of American Publishers.
But while there are plenty of objections (and to be clear, also lots of support), Schmidt doesn’t see opponents suggesting viable alternatives to resolve the lawsuit."
http://searchengineland.com/googles-schmidt-to-book-settlement-critics-whats-your-solution-25950
"The additional rights, the creation of a book registry and many other details have led some to feel that the entire landscape for digital book publishing and copyright is being changed so radically that a new process should start that involves more than a settlement between Google and the two primary groups that sued it, the Authors Guild and Association Of American Publishers.
But while there are plenty of objections (and to be clear, also lots of support), Schmidt doesn’t see opponents suggesting viable alternatives to resolve the lawsuit."
http://searchengineland.com/googles-schmidt-to-book-settlement-critics-whats-your-solution-25950
Court Acknowledges More Than 400 Submissions in Google Settlement; Publishers Weekly, 9/16/09
Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Court Acknowledges More Than 400 Submissions in Google Settlement:
"In an order posted Wednesday, federal judge Denny Chin said the fairness hearing for the Google Book Search Settlement scheduled for October 7 will go forward, and acknowledged receipt of more than 400 written filings. In the order, Chin gave the parties in the settlement until October 2 to respond in writing to the filings, and laid out the procedures that will govern the hearing.
Those wishing to speak at the hearing have until September 21 to request time via e-mail, and will be notified by September 25 whether they will be permitted to address the court. In the order, Chin also said the court would review all the written filings in the case. One major filing, however, still looms—Chin had previously given the Department of Justice until September 18 to file its written comments with the court.
Bloomberg, meanwhile, reported that Google, publishers and authors are in talks with the Justice Department on ways to address any concerns the department may have about the deal."
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6697405.html?desc=topstory
"In an order posted Wednesday, federal judge Denny Chin said the fairness hearing for the Google Book Search Settlement scheduled for October 7 will go forward, and acknowledged receipt of more than 400 written filings. In the order, Chin gave the parties in the settlement until October 2 to respond in writing to the filings, and laid out the procedures that will govern the hearing.
Those wishing to speak at the hearing have until September 21 to request time via e-mail, and will be notified by September 25 whether they will be permitted to address the court. In the order, Chin also said the court would review all the written filings in the case. One major filing, however, still looms—Chin had previously given the Department of Justice until September 18 to file its written comments with the court.
Bloomberg, meanwhile, reported that Google, publishers and authors are in talks with the Justice Department on ways to address any concerns the department may have about the deal."
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6697405.html?desc=topstory
Judge may limit speakers in Google books hearing; Associated Press, 9/17/09
Associated Press; Judge may limit speakers in Google books hearing:
"A New York judge says about 400 submissions were filed with his chambers prior to a hearing on a hotly disputed class-action settlement that would give Google Inc. the digital rights to millions of out-of-print books.
Federal Judge Denny Chin said Wednesday he may have to limit the number of speakers and how long each can speak at an Oct. 7 fairness hearing for the settlement in Manhattan.
He said anyone who wishes to speak must submit a request in writing by Monday at googlebookcase(at)nysd.uscourts.gov. Those permitted to speak will be notified by e-mail by Sept. 25."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isXQXVfWnyJKN1Bit-Yttl1PHuCwD9AOMCMO2
"A New York judge says about 400 submissions were filed with his chambers prior to a hearing on a hotly disputed class-action settlement that would give Google Inc. the digital rights to millions of out-of-print books.
Federal Judge Denny Chin said Wednesday he may have to limit the number of speakers and how long each can speak at an Oct. 7 fairness hearing for the settlement in Manhattan.
He said anyone who wishes to speak must submit a request in writing by Monday at googlebookcase(at)nysd.uscourts.gov. Those permitted to speak will be notified by e-mail by Sept. 25."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isXQXVfWnyJKN1Bit-Yttl1PHuCwD9AOMCMO2
State AGs Don't Like Google Books Deal, What About Readers?; PC World, 9/18/09
Dave Coursey, PC World; State AGs Don't Like Google Books Deal, What About Readers?:
"Five state attorneys general have joined the opposition to the Google Books settlement, but what the deal means to readers isn't clear. Access to more books sounds great, but will it be?
The five AGs, from Missouri, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Washington, have varied reasons for their opposition, ranging from anti-monopoly to how money owed missing authors should be handled. The attorneys general are relatively late arrivals to the case, which already involves the U.S. Justice Department and others"
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/172229/state_ags_dont_like_google_books_deal_what_about_readers.html
"Five state attorneys general have joined the opposition to the Google Books settlement, but what the deal means to readers isn't clear. Access to more books sounds great, but will it be?
The five AGs, from Missouri, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Washington, have varied reasons for their opposition, ranging from anti-monopoly to how money owed missing authors should be handled. The attorneys general are relatively late arrivals to the case, which already involves the U.S. Justice Department and others"
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/172229/state_ags_dont_like_google_books_deal_what_about_readers.html
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Coldplay copyright case 'settled'; BBC News, 9/16/09
BBC News; Coldplay copyright case 'settled':
"Coldplay and Joe Satriani have reached an agreement over a court case alleging they copied parts of one his songs, according to reports.
The guitarist sued the band last year saying they used "substantial, original portions" of his 2004 song If I Could Fly on their track Viva La Vida.
Billboard magazine said he had dropped the case and that Coldplay would not be required to admit wrongdoing...
It is not clear whether a financial settlement was reached."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8258217.stm
"Coldplay and Joe Satriani have reached an agreement over a court case alleging they copied parts of one his songs, according to reports.
The guitarist sued the band last year saying they used "substantial, original portions" of his 2004 song If I Could Fly on their track Viva La Vida.
Billboard magazine said he had dropped the case and that Coldplay would not be required to admit wrongdoing...
It is not clear whether a financial settlement was reached."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8258217.stm
Amazon Scoffs at Google’s Offer to Share Book Search Sales; Wired, 9/10/09
Ryan Singel, Wired; Amazon Scoffs at Google’s Offer to Share Book Search Sales:
"The Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters went even further than Amazon, accusing the courts of usurping Congress and that the agreement made a “mockery of Article 1 of the Constitution.”
“Key parts of the settlement are fundamentally at odds with the law and impinge on the rights of authors,” Peters said.
In particular, the settlement lets Google do more with scanned books than just use them in search results and to sell them, making the settlement license overly broad.
Such licenses should be given out only by Congress, Peters argued.
But Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) said the deal should be approved, calling it a “rare truce in the copyright wars.”
Moreover, Congress was to blame for the whole mess anyhow, by failing to fix the orphan book issue in recent years.
Lofgren also suggested that Congress simply reduce the number of books still in copyright by repealing the 1998 Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act, which added extended copyright terms for 20 years, reportedly to keep Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain.
Thanks to the act, no books will go into the public domain in the United States automatically until 2019."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/amazon-google-book-search-sales/
"The Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters went even further than Amazon, accusing the courts of usurping Congress and that the agreement made a “mockery of Article 1 of the Constitution.”
“Key parts of the settlement are fundamentally at odds with the law and impinge on the rights of authors,” Peters said.
In particular, the settlement lets Google do more with scanned books than just use them in search results and to sell them, making the settlement license overly broad.
Such licenses should be given out only by Congress, Peters argued.
But Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) said the deal should be approved, calling it a “rare truce in the copyright wars.”
Moreover, Congress was to blame for the whole mess anyhow, by failing to fix the orphan book issue in recent years.
Lofgren also suggested that Congress simply reduce the number of books still in copyright by repealing the 1998 Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act, which added extended copyright terms for 20 years, reportedly to keep Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain.
Thanks to the act, no books will go into the public domain in the United States automatically until 2019."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/amazon-google-book-search-sales/
Shakespeare in seconds: Instant book machine gets Google Books access; LA Times, 9/17/09
Carolyn Kellogg, LA Times; Shakespeare in seconds: Instant book machine gets Google Books access:
"Today OnDemandBooks, the makers of the Espresso Book Machine, announced a deal with Google Book Search for access to the more than 2 million public domain books in Google's digital files. If you've got access to an Espresso, Shakespeare's "As You Like It" can be yours in less than five minutes and for about $8...
With an Espresso, the books are first sold, then printed, inverting the standard publishing industry business model...
One place where you can find an Espresso is the Bibliotheca Alexandria in Egypt, which, in reinventing the old Library of Alexandria, is tying a very old shared intellectual tradition to this very new one."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/09/shakespeare-in-seconds-instant-book-machine-gets-google-books-access.html
"Today OnDemandBooks, the makers of the Espresso Book Machine, announced a deal with Google Book Search for access to the more than 2 million public domain books in Google's digital files. If you've got access to an Espresso, Shakespeare's "As You Like It" can be yours in less than five minutes and for about $8...
With an Espresso, the books are first sold, then printed, inverting the standard publishing industry business model...
One place where you can find an Espresso is the Bibliotheca Alexandria in Egypt, which, in reinventing the old Library of Alexandria, is tying a very old shared intellectual tradition to this very new one."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/09/shakespeare-in-seconds-instant-book-machine-gets-google-books-access.html
Skype Founders File Copyright Suit Against eBay; New York Times, 9/17/09
Brad Stone, New York Times; Skype Founders File Copyright Suit Against eBay:
"Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, who became billionaires after selling Skype to eBay in 2005, filed a copyright lawsuit on Wednesday against Skype in the United States District Court of Northern California. The suit comes a little more than two weeks after eBay announced it would sell most of Skype for $1.9 billion to a consortium of investors led by the private equity firm Silver Lake Partners.
In the court filing, Joltid, a company owned by the Skype founders, claims that eBay violated copyright law by altering and sharing the peer-to-peer source code behind the free Internet calling service. The Skype founders maintained ownership of that source code after selling Skype to eBay in 2005, and licensed it to eBay.
Joltid seeks an injunction and statutory damages, which it says could total more than $75 million a day."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/technology/companies/17skype.html
"Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, who became billionaires after selling Skype to eBay in 2005, filed a copyright lawsuit on Wednesday against Skype in the United States District Court of Northern California. The suit comes a little more than two weeks after eBay announced it would sell most of Skype for $1.9 billion to a consortium of investors led by the private equity firm Silver Lake Partners.
In the court filing, Joltid, a company owned by the Skype founders, claims that eBay violated copyright law by altering and sharing the peer-to-peer source code behind the free Internet calling service. The Skype founders maintained ownership of that source code after selling Skype to eBay in 2005, and licensed it to eBay.
Joltid seeks an injunction and statutory damages, which it says could total more than $75 million a day."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/technology/companies/17skype.html
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
France Mulls 'Three Strikes' Internet Piracy Bill; NPR, 9/15/09
NPR; France Mulls 'Three Strikes' Internet Piracy Bill:
"Trying to crack down on piracy, French lawmakers have spent the summer arguing over legislation dubbed "three strikes and you're out of Internet service." Under the bill, authorities will be able to cut off service to suspected Internet pirates — after two warnings. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and entertainers like it, but privacy advocates see is as a threat to civil liberties."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112839261
"Trying to crack down on piracy, French lawmakers have spent the summer arguing over legislation dubbed "three strikes and you're out of Internet service." Under the bill, authorities will be able to cut off service to suspected Internet pirates — after two warnings. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and entertainers like it, but privacy advocates see is as a threat to civil liberties."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112839261
5 Major Research Universities Endorse Open-Access Journals; Wired Campus, 5/14/09
Ben Terris via Wired Campus; 5 Major Research Universities Endorse Open-Access Journals:
"In an effort to support alternatives to traditional scholarly publishing, five major research universities announced their joint commitment to open-access journals on Monday.
The institutions—Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of California at Berkeley—signed a compact agreeing to the “timely establishment” of mechanisms for providing financial support for free open-access journals."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Five-Major-Research/8042/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
"In an effort to support alternatives to traditional scholarly publishing, five major research universities announced their joint commitment to open-access journals on Monday.
The institutions—Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of California at Berkeley—signed a compact agreeing to the “timely establishment” of mechanisms for providing financial support for free open-access journals."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Five-Major-Research/8042/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Copyright Office Assails Google’s Settlement on Digital Books; New York Times, 9/11/09
Miguel Helft, New York Times; Copyright Office Assails Google’s Settlement on Digital Books:
"The nation’s top copyright official made a blistering attack Thursday on a controversial legal settlement that would let Google create a huge online library and bookstore.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Marybeth Peters, the United States register of copyrights, said the settlement between Google and groups representing authors and publishers amounted to an end-run around copyright law that would wrest control of books from authors and other right holders.
Ms. Peters, the first government official to address the settlement in detail, said it would allow Google to profit from the work of others without prior consent and that it could put “diplomatic stress” on the United States because it affected foreign authors whose rights are protected by international treaties.
But David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, who also testified at the hearing, defended the agreement saying it let authors retain control of their books and would expand access to millions of out-of-print books that are largely hidden in libraries."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/technology/internet/11books.html?scp=2&sq=google&st=cse
"The nation’s top copyright official made a blistering attack Thursday on a controversial legal settlement that would let Google create a huge online library and bookstore.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Marybeth Peters, the United States register of copyrights, said the settlement between Google and groups representing authors and publishers amounted to an end-run around copyright law that would wrest control of books from authors and other right holders.
Ms. Peters, the first government official to address the settlement in detail, said it would allow Google to profit from the work of others without prior consent and that it could put “diplomatic stress” on the United States because it affected foreign authors whose rights are protected by international treaties.
But David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, who also testified at the hearing, defended the agreement saying it let authors retain control of their books and would expand access to millions of out-of-print books that are largely hidden in libraries."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/technology/internet/11books.html?scp=2&sq=google&st=cse
'Books' would tell Google about you; NPR's Marketplace, 9/10/09
NPR's Marketplace; 'Books' would tell Google about you:
"A House Committee is looking into the Google Books settlement today. Google has already scanned millions of titles but objections to the deal could throw a wrench into the online library."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/10/am-google-books/
"A House Committee is looking into the Google Books settlement today. Google has already scanned millions of titles but objections to the deal could throw a wrench into the online library."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/10/am-google-books/
Op-Ed: Google book settlement not an open-shut benefit; Washington Post, 9/12/09
OpEd, Washington Post, via Detroit news; Google book settlement not an open-shut benefit:
"Some call it Alexandria 2.0, and the comparison with the great library of antiquity is apt. Google has digitized millions of books, and if its proposed class-action settlement with their authors and publishers passes muster, these books -- formerly the province of college libraries and research institutions -- will be available to everyone. Google began digitizing books without the permission of copyright holders, claiming fair use. This provoked a class-action lawsuit on the part of authors and publishers, resulting in a settlement that offers many boons for the public.
Books already in the public domain will be freely available, and those still under copyright will be available in a standard 20 percent preview. Google will also provide free public access to the entire online repository of content at terminals in nearly 20,000 public and university libraries across the country, only charging fees to print.
But wait, there's more! Google gives book rights holders tremendous control. They can decide what price to charge for their works, control the amount available in the free preview, and add and remove works from the online collection. And the settlement establishes a nonprofit organization, the Book Rights Registry, to locate content owners and serve as a clearinghouse through which they can receive payment from Google and negotiate with new entrants to the digital market.
What about books still under copyright whose owners have not been located -- so-called "orphan" books? Google's claim makes sense: Many rights holders will emerge once they see that their work has value, but it is also in the registry's charter to seek out these rights holders. As Google Book Search generates revenue for content creators, the owners of all but the least-accessed, least-valuable books will probably come forward.
So it's curious that Google felt the need to include a clause in the settlement to prevent the registry, negotiating on behalf of "orphan" books, from offering a better deal to any of the company's competitors within its first 10 years. Google's argument is that it performed a public service by setting up the registry, investing millions of dollars in what will be a non-affiliated, nonprofit organization. This hefty initial investment would not be required of future entrants to the market, leaving Google at a disadvantage. Protection would ensure a level playing field. But if the set of protected books encompasses only those so valueless that no one will come forward to claim them, it is baffling why protection from competition in this area would be valuable. If, on the other hand, locating book rights holders requires time and effort, and the market for digitized versions of these books is easy enough to enter that a competitor could offer a better deal, this clause would create a real barrier to competition.
Google's innovative efforts will enhance the world's access to knowledge, but that doesn't mean it deserves to have it both ways. Its settlement is in many ways better for consumers than the possible outcome of litigation. But the fact that what Google is doing is wonderful should not preclude the potential to do better."
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090912/OPINION01/909120311/1008/OPINION01/Google-book-settlement-not-an-open-shut-benefit
"Some call it Alexandria 2.0, and the comparison with the great library of antiquity is apt. Google has digitized millions of books, and if its proposed class-action settlement with their authors and publishers passes muster, these books -- formerly the province of college libraries and research institutions -- will be available to everyone. Google began digitizing books without the permission of copyright holders, claiming fair use. This provoked a class-action lawsuit on the part of authors and publishers, resulting in a settlement that offers many boons for the public.
Books already in the public domain will be freely available, and those still under copyright will be available in a standard 20 percent preview. Google will also provide free public access to the entire online repository of content at terminals in nearly 20,000 public and university libraries across the country, only charging fees to print.
But wait, there's more! Google gives book rights holders tremendous control. They can decide what price to charge for their works, control the amount available in the free preview, and add and remove works from the online collection. And the settlement establishes a nonprofit organization, the Book Rights Registry, to locate content owners and serve as a clearinghouse through which they can receive payment from Google and negotiate with new entrants to the digital market.
What about books still under copyright whose owners have not been located -- so-called "orphan" books? Google's claim makes sense: Many rights holders will emerge once they see that their work has value, but it is also in the registry's charter to seek out these rights holders. As Google Book Search generates revenue for content creators, the owners of all but the least-accessed, least-valuable books will probably come forward.
So it's curious that Google felt the need to include a clause in the settlement to prevent the registry, negotiating on behalf of "orphan" books, from offering a better deal to any of the company's competitors within its first 10 years. Google's argument is that it performed a public service by setting up the registry, investing millions of dollars in what will be a non-affiliated, nonprofit organization. This hefty initial investment would not be required of future entrants to the market, leaving Google at a disadvantage. Protection would ensure a level playing field. But if the set of protected books encompasses only those so valueless that no one will come forward to claim them, it is baffling why protection from competition in this area would be valuable. If, on the other hand, locating book rights holders requires time and effort, and the market for digitized versions of these books is easy enough to enter that a competitor could offer a better deal, this clause would create a real barrier to competition.
Google's innovative efforts will enhance the world's access to knowledge, but that doesn't mean it deserves to have it both ways. Its settlement is in many ways better for consumers than the possible outcome of litigation. But the fact that what Google is doing is wonderful should not preclude the potential to do better."
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090912/OPINION01/909120311/1008/OPINION01/Google-book-settlement-not-an-open-shut-benefit
Friday, September 11, 2009
Judge Rejects Copyright Suit Against Jessica Seinfeld; New York Times, 9/11/09
Stephanie Clifford via New York Times; Judge Rejects Copyright Suit Against Jessica Seinfeld:
"“Countless authors have used the idea of sneaking healthy food into children’s meals, and no one has a monopoly over that idea — the court made that clear,” Mr. Snyder said. “What made Jessica’s book a No. 1 best seller is her innovative and creative expression of that idea.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/business/media/11seinfeld.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=seinfeld&st=cse
"“Countless authors have used the idea of sneaking healthy food into children’s meals, and no one has a monopoly over that idea — the court made that clear,” Mr. Snyder said. “What made Jessica’s book a No. 1 best seller is her innovative and creative expression of that idea.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/business/media/11seinfeld.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=seinfeld&st=cse
Choosing Up Sides to Hate or Love the Google Books Deal; Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/10/09
Jennifer Howard via Chronicle of Higher Education; Choosing Up Sides to Hate or Love the Google Books Deal:
http://chronicle.com/article/Choosing-Up-Sides-in-the/48357/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
http://chronicle.com/article/Choosing-Up-Sides-in-the/48357/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)