Category: Publishing

Foreign opposition to the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement appears to be growing as the rights holder opt-out deadline nears.

Read more about it at "174 Writers, Poets Reject Google Book Search Offer"; "BA Warns Rights Holders over Google"; "Europeans Seem to Know Little About Google Settlement, But Enough Not to Like It"; and "German Authors Outraged at Google Book Search."

Google has requested permission from the presiding court to extend the deadline for authors to opt out of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement by 60 days.

Here's an excerpt from "Extending Notice on the Google Book Search Settlement":

It's pretty easy for credit card companies to contact their cardholders—they send bills to them all the time. The world's authors, publishers and their heirs are much more difficult to find. So, as the New York Times recently reported, the plaintiffs hired notice campaign specialists Kinsella Media Group to tell them about this exciting settlement, and Google has devoted millions of dollars to fund this notice campaign. . . .

The settlement is highly detailed, and we want to make sure rightsholders everywhere have enough time to think about it and make sure it's right for them. That's why we've asked the court for permission to extend the opt-out deadline for an extra 60 days.

Read more about it at "Delay Looming For Google Settlement Deadline?" and "Google Seeks More Time in Book Search Case."

United States District Judge Denny Chin has denied the Internet Archive's motion to intervene in Authors Guild vs. Google.

Read more about it at "Judge Rejects Internet Archive Motion to Intervene in Google Settlement."

In "ALA Participates in ITIF Google Book Settlement Panel at Library of Congress," District Dispatch describes an ITIF meeting on "Copyright, Content and Class Action Lawsuits: A Debate on the Google Book Search Settlement" at the Library of Congress.

Here's an excerpt:

Yesterday, Dr. Alan Inouye, Director of the American Library Association’s Office for Information Technology Policy, participated in a panel called Copyright, Content and Class Action Lawsuits: A Debate on the Google Book Search Settlement. The talk was sponsored by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), and held at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Dr. Inouye offered remarks on the proposed Google Book Settlement from the library and public interest perspective. Also contributing to the panel were Dr. Daniel Clancy, Engineering Director for Google Book Search, Allan Adler, VP of Government Affairs for the Association of American Publishers, and Peter Brantley, Director of Access for the Internet Archive. Daniel Castro, Senior Analyst at ITIF, moderated the panel discussion.

A digital video of the debate is available at the meeting web site.

In "Google Book Settlement, Orphan Works, and Foreign Works," Peter Hirtle discusses the impact of the Google Book Settlement on foreign copyright holders.

Here's an excerpt:

The scope of the foreign land grab could be considerable. Some initial estimates suggest that 7 million books could be included in the settlement. Of these it is estimated that 1 million are in the public domain. That would leave 6 million in-copyright but out-of-print books. Early efforts to try to understand the nature of the library collections that were being used to build the Google books database suggested that 50% of the works in the libraries were not in English, so it would be safe to say that at least 3 million of the books in the settlement will be foreign works. (Since Google added many European partners after this study was done, the number is likely to be much higher.) Some of these are going to be orphan works—but many more are going to have easily locatable rights holders that have chosen not to be active participants in the settlement. Their royalties are destined for the pockets of the Registry. I am willing to bet that a goodly percentage of the operating expenses of the Registry will come not from orphan works, but rather from foreign authors who do not understand the need to participate in the settlement.

James Grimmelmann of the New York Law School has self-archived "The Google Book Search Settlement: Ends, Means, and the Future of Books" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The settlement tackles the orphan works problem, but through the judicial process. Laundering orphan works legislation through a class action lawsuit is both a brilliant response to legislative inaction and a dangerous use of the judicial power. Many of the public interest safeguards that would have been present in the political arena are attenuated in a seemingly private lawsuit; the lack of such safeguards is evident in the terms of the resulting settlement. The solution is to reinsert these missing public interest protections into the settlement.

Pamela Samuelson, Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law and Information at the University of California, Berkeley, has posted an eprint of "Legally Speaking: The Dead Souls of the Google Booksearch Settlement" on O'Reilly Radar.

Here's an excerpt:

This column argues that the proposed settlement of this lawsuit is a privately negotiated compulsory license primarily designed to monetize millions of orphan works. It will benefit Google and certain authors and publishers, but it is questionable whether the authors of most books in the corpus (the "dead souls" to which the title refers) would agree that the settling authors and publishers will truly represent their interests when setting terms for access to the Book Search corpus.

(Note: See the Wikipedia entry on Nikolai Gogol's Dead Souls.)

The Internet Archive has sent a letter to Judge Denny Chin asking for a conference about a motion to intervene in the Author's Guild v. Google suit.

Here's its letter.

Randal C. Picker of the University of Chicago Law School has self-archived "The Google Book Search Settlement: A New Orphan-Works Monopoly?" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The settlement agreement is exceeding complex but I have focused on three issues that raise antitrust and competition policy concerns. First, the agreement calls for Google to act as agent for rights holders in setting the price of online access to consumers. Google is tasked with developing a pricing algorithm that will maximize revenues for each of those works. Direct competition among rights holders would push prices towards some measure of costs and would not be designed to maximize revenues. As I think that level of direct coordination of prices is unlikely to mimic what would result in competition, I have real doubts about whether the consumer access pricing provision would survive a challenge under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Second, and much more centrally to the settlement agreement, the opt out class action will make it possible for Google to include orphan works in its book search service. Orphan works are works as to which the rightsholder can't be identified or found. That means that a firm like Google can't contract with an orphan holder directly to include his or her work in the service and that would result in large numbers of missing works. The opt out mechanism—which shifts the default from copyright's usual out to the class action's in—brings these works into the settlement. . . .

Third, there is a risk that approval by the court of the settlement could cause antitrust immunities to attach to the arrangements created by the settlement agreement. As it is highly unlikely that the fairness hearing will undertake a meaningful antitrust analysis of those arrangements, if the district court approves the settlement, the court should include a clause—call this a no Noerr clause—in the order approving the settlement providing that no antitrust immunities attach from the court's approval.