Category: Copyright

EFF Raises Concerns over Privacy Issues in Goggle Book Search

In "Warrants Required: EFF and Google's Big Disagreement about Google Book Search," Cindy Cohn discusses the Electronic Frontier Foundation's concerns over privacy issues in Google Book Search.

Here's an excerpt:

One of the most important of those protections is the assurance that your browsing and reading habits are safe from fishing expeditions by the government or lawyers in civil cases. In order to maintain freedom of inquiry and thought, the books we search for, browse, and read should simply be unavailable for use against us in a court of law except in the rarest of circumstances. We have other concerns about Google Book Search as well—concerns and data collection, retention, and reader anonymity—so this won't end the debate, but safeguards against disclosure are a central point of concern for us. . . .

Given this backdrop, we asked Google to promise that it would fight for those same standards to be applied to its Google Book Search product. . . .

Unfortunately, Google has refused. It is insisting on keeping broad discretion to decide when and where it will actually stand up for user privacy, and saying that we should just trust the company to do so. So, if Bob looks like a good guy, maybe they'll stand up for him. But if standing up for Alice could make Google look bad, complicate things for the company, or seem ill-advised for some other reason, then Google insists on having the leeway to simply hand over her reading list after a subpoena or some lesser legal process. As Google Book Search grows, the pressure on Google to compromise readers' privacy will likely grow too, whether from government entities that have to approve mergers or investigate antitrust complaints, or subpoenas from companies where Google has a business relationship, or for some other reason that emerges over time.

"The Regulation of Creativity Under the WIPO Internet Treaties"

Ruth Okediji, Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, has self-archived "The Regulation of Creativity Under the WIPO Internet Treaties" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WIPO Internet Treaties) recite a need for a digital copyright framework to facilitate 'adequate solutions to questions raised by new economic, social, cultural and technological developments.' It can hardly be contested that the social and cultural developments to which the Treaties refer do not derive from the cultural or economic conditions (much less technological developments) of the developing and least-developed countries. Consistent with their predecessors, the WIPO Internet Treaties marginalize collaborative forms of creative engagement with which citizens in the global South have long identified and continue in the tradition of assuming that copyright’s most enduring cannons are culturally neutral. Recently, however, the rise of Web 2.0 and the salience of new forms of creativity mediated by digital technologies and social networking sites have exposed structural tensions in copyright laws of OECD countries similar to those which developing countries have historically raised in opposition to the Berne Convention. This Essay reviews the evolution of the WIPO Internet Treaties and argues that the framework established just over a decade ago is increasingly less relevant in addressing the challenges of creativity in the digital age. The Treaties do not provide a meaningful basis for a harmonized approach to encourage new creative forms in much the same way the Berne Convention fell short of embracing diversity in patterns and modes of authorial expression. The growing social and legal recognition of new forms of creativity enabled through digital technologies offers an important opportunity to challenge anew claims that globally mandated copyright norms can effect incentives to create that are relevant across geographical, cultural and technological boundaries.

Bibliothèque Nationale de France Google Book Search Deal?

According to an 8/18/09 article in La Tribune, "Google en Négociation avec la Bibliothèque Nationale de France," the BnF was negotiating a deal with Google to digitize its collection.

Amid a brewing controversy about the alleged deal, the BnF issued a press release to clarify the issue.

Here's an excerpt from the press release (translated using Google Translate):

Following a news item published in Tuesday August 18 The Tribune, the BnF wishes to clarify that it has not signed an agreement with Google for digitization of its collection. The Library has never ruled out a private partnership would be consistent with the strategy of the Ministry of Culture regarding digital content and respect the principles of free and freedom access to works exclusively free for use. BnF reminded that, thanks to government support with the NLC, it has embarked on a program of large-scale digitization of its Collections: 100,000 printed per year over three years and a large selection of rare and valuable documents (books, manuscripts, prints . . .). Readily available on the public site Gallica, these Documents feed-Free Europeana naturally, the European digital library.

At the same time, a unique partnership in the world has been up with the French publishers to bring an offer of legal books Digital law and under permit from Gallica, find easily links to their marketing platforms.

Read more about it at "French Library Denies 'Google Seduction' Claims," "Google Breaks into French National Library," and "Google Bruises Gallic Pride as National Library Does Deal with Search Giant"

Peter Hirtle on "The Undiscussed Danger to Libraries in the Google Books Settlement"

In "The Undiscussed Danger to Libraries in the Google Books Settlement," Peter Hirtle discusses the printing fees that libraries may have deal with as a result of the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement.

Here's an excerpt:

Here is the kicker: if the library charges a fee for printing (and how many libraries can allow users to print for free?), then they are required by Section 4.8(a)(ii) of the Agreement to charge users for the printing. Google will collect the money on behalf of libraries and pass it on to the Registry. Google has agreed to pay the cost of the printing for the first five years or $3 million, whichever comes first.

U.S. Department of Justice Supports $1.92 Million Statutory Damages for Illegally Sharing 24 Songs

The U.S. Department of Justice has submitted a brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota supporting the $1.92 million statutory damages award that Jammie Thomas-Rasset must pay for illegally sharing 24 songs ($80,000 per song).

Read more about it at "DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 per Song Unconstitutional or Oppressive," "Justice Department Defends Massive File-Swapping Fine," and "US Govt Says $1.92M P2P Damage Award Totally Fair."

Presentations from the Council of Science Editors 2009 Meeting

Presentations from the Council of Science Editors 2009 meeting are now available.

Some sessions of interest include:

  • D2. The Evidence on Open Access
  • D3. Copyright, Open Access, Subscriptions, and Permissions: What Editors Need to Know in the New Digital Publishing Environment
  • E2. How to Deal with Funding Mandates
  • G2. Challenges of Creating Digital Libraries: Digitizing, Organizing, Storing, and Accessing Content

University of California Faculty Bodies Comment on Goggle Book Search Settlement

Members of the University of California's Academic Council and the chair of the Academic Senate’s Committee on Libraries and Scholarly Communication have submitted a letter about the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Here's an excerpt:

We have three main concerns about the proposed settlement agreement. First, to maximize access to knowledge, prices should be reasonable. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement agreement contains inadequate checks and balances to prevent price gouging and unduly restrictive terms for purchasers of books and institutional subscribers. Second, the agreement does not contemplate or make provision for open access choices that have in recent years become common among academic authorial communities, especially with regard to out of print books. The settlement agreement only contemplates that authors would monetize their books and related metadata through the Book Rights Registry (BRR). This is especially worrisome as to the millions of out of print, and likely orphan, books. Third, the agreement contemplates some monitoring of user queries and uses of books in the Book Search corpus that negatively impinge on significant privacy interests of authors and readers and undermine fundamental academic freedom principles.

Read more about it at "U.C. Professors Seek Changes to Google Books Deal."

Google Books Adds Creative Commons Licence Options

In "Bringing the Power of Creative Commons to Google Books," Xian Ke, Associate Product Manager of Google Books, describes Google's new Creative Commons license options for rights holders, and indicates that, in the future, users will be able to restrict searches to works that have such licenses. Users will be able to download complete Creative Commons licensed books, and if the license permits, modify them.

"The Google Book Settlement and the Fair Use Counterfactual"

Matthew Sag, Associate Professor at the DePaul University College of Law, has self-archived "The Google Book Settlement and the Fair Use Counterfactual" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

In the wake of the proposed Settlement, the Google Book debate has shifted away from the merits of book digitization, and refocused on questions of commoditization and control. This Article highlights four critical areas in which the Settlement differs sharply from the predicted fair use ruling. First, the Settlement permits Google to engage in a significant range of uses including the complete electronic distribution of books that go well beyond fair use. Second, the Settlement provides for initial cash payments by Google to the copyright owners and a fairly generous revenue sharing agreement, neither of which would have been required under a fair use ruling. Third, the agreement creates a new set of institutional arrangements that will govern the relationship between Google and the copyright owners covered by the Settlement. The foundations of this new institutional framework are the Settlement agreement itself, the creation of a collective rights management organization called the "Book Rights Registry" and the "Author Publisher Procedures." The fourth area in which the Settlement differs from the likely fair use outcome relates to the accessibility, commoditization and control of orphan works.

Pamela Samuelson on "The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement"

In "The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement," noted copyright expert Pamela Samuelson examines the Google Book Search Settlement.

Here's an excerpt:

However, much larger questions call into question whether the settlement should be approved. One is whether the Authors Guild and AAP fairly represented the interests of all authors and publishers of in-copyright books during the negotiations that led up to the settlement agreement. A second is whether going forward, they and the newly created Registry to which they will give birth will fairly represent the interests of those on whose behalf the Registry will be receiving revenues from Google.

ACRL, ALA, ARL Submit Letter to Justice's Antitrust Division about Google Book Search Settlement

ACRL, ALA, ARL have submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division about the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement.

Here's an excerpt from the press release :

The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) sent a letter to William Cavanaugh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division yesterday, requesting the Division to advise the court presiding over the Google Book Settlement to supervise the implementation of the settlement closely, particularly the pricing of institutional subscriptions and the selection of the Book Rights Registry board members.

The letter, which was sent following a meeting the library groups had with the Antitrust Division, also recommended that the Division itself actively monitor the parties' compliance with the settlement's provisions.

In particular, the library groups urged the Division to ask the court to review pricing of institutional subscriptions whenever the Division concludes that the prices do not meet the economic objectives set forth in the settlement. In order to evaluate the price of an institutional subscription, the groups believe the Division should have access to all relevant price information from Google and the Registry.

The library associations assert that the Division should ask the court to review any refusal by the Registry to license copyrights in books on the same terms available to Google and to also review the selection process for the Registry Board to ensure the interests of all rightsholders are considered.

EFF Releases Letter to Google about Reader Privacy and Google Book Search

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has released a letter to Google about reader privacy and Google Book Search.

Here's an excerpt:

  1. Protection Against Disclosure: Readers should be able to use Google books without worrying that the government or a third party is reading over their shoulder. Google needs to promise that it will protect reader records by responding only to properly-issued warrants from law enforcement and court orders from third parties. It also must promise that it will let readers know if anyone has demanded access to information about them.
  2. Limited Tracking: Just as readers can anonymously browse books in a library or bookstore, they should also be able to search, browse, and preview Google books without being forced to register or provide any personal information to Google. And for any of its Google Book Search services, Google must not keep logging information longer than 30 days. Google should also not link any information it collects about reader use of Google Book Search to that reader’s usage of any other Google services without specific, affirmative consent.
  3. User Control: Readers should have complete control of their purchases and purchasing data. Readers should be able to delete their records and have extensive permissions controls for their "bookshelves" or any other reading displays to prevent others from seeing their reading activities. Readers should be able to “give” books to anyone, including to themselves, without tracking. Google also should not reveal any information about Google book use to credit card processors or any other third parties.
  4. User Transparency: Readers should know what information is being collected and maintained about them and when and why reader information has been disclosed. Google needs to develop a robust, enforceable privacy policy and publish the number and type of demands for reader information that are received on an annual basis.

Read more about it at "Don't Let Google Close the Book on Reader Privacy!."

Irish ISP Eircom to Enact Three-Strikes Illegal File Sharing Policy

Under pressure from the Irish Recorded Music Association, a large Irish ISP, Eircom, will put in place a three-strikes policy in August against alleged copyright offenders: first strike, a warning; second strike, Internet service will be "throttled," and, third strike, Internet service will be disconnected.

Read more about it at "Ireland's Largest ISP to Start 'Throttling' Illegal Downloaders," "Ireland’s Largest ISP Starts Throttling and Disconnections," "Recording Industry Sues More Irish ISPs for Not Implementing 3 Strikes."

Kevin L. Smith on "Open Access and Authors’ Rights Management: A Possibility for Theology?"

Kevin L. Smith, Scholarly Communications Officer at the Duke University Libraries, has published "Open Access and Authors’ Rights Management: A Possibility for Theology?" in Theological Librarianship: An Online Journal of the American Theological Library Association.

Here's an excerpt:

Several academic disciplines have begun to understand the benefits of open access to scholarship, both for scholars and for the general public. Scientific disciplines have led the way, partially due to the nature of scholarship in those areas and partially because they have felt the crisis in serials pricing more acutely than others. Theological studies, however, have largely been insulated from the push for open access; considering the reasons for that is the first task of this article. It is also the case, however, that the missionary impulse that stands behind much theological scholarship is a strong incentive to embrace the opportunities afforded by digital, online dissemination of research and writing. After discussing this imperative for global distribution, the bulk of the article focuses on how theological institutions, and especially their libraries, can encourage and support scholars in making their work freely accessible. Copyright issues, including the elements of a successful copyright management program, are discussed, as are some of the technological elements necessary for an efficient and discoverable open access repository. Options for licensing, both at ingestion of content and at dissemination to users are also considered. Finally, it is argued that the role of consortia and professional organizations in supporting these initiatives is especially important because of the relatively small size of so many theological institutions.

Forcing the Net Through a Sieve: Why Copyright Filtering is Not a Viable Solution for U.S. ISPs

Public Knowledge has released Forcing the Net Through a Sieve: Why Copyright Filtering is Not a Viable Solution for U.S. ISPs.

Here's an excerpt:

Copyright filtering, the latest proposed "magic bullet" solution from the major music and movie studios and industry trade groups, poses a number of dangers to Internet users, legitimate businesses and U.S. federal government initiatives to increase the speed, affordability and utilization of broadband Internet services. The following whitepaper presents a number of reasons why the use of copyright filters should not be allowed, encouraged or mandated on U.S. Internet Service Provider (ISP) networks. Among them:

  1. Copyright filters are both underinclusive and overinclusive. A copyright filter will fail to identify all unlawful or unwanted content while harming lawful uses of content.

  2. Copyright filter processing will add latency. Copyright filters will slow ISP networks, discouraging use, innovation and investment and harming users, businesses and technology policy initiatives.

  3. The implementation of copyright filters will result in a technological arms race. Users will act to circumvent the filters and the architects of the filters will find themselves caught in a costly, unwinnable arms race.

  4. Copyright filters do not make economic sense. The monetary costs associated with copyright filtering far outweigh any perceived benefits.

  5. Copyright filters will discourage investment in the Internet economy. Copyright filters will disrupt the Internet ecosystem, severely undermining our most promising engine for economic growth.

  6. Copyright filters will harm free speech. Due to technological limitations, copyright filters will harm lawful, protected forms of speech such as parody and satire.

  7. Copyright filters could undermine the safe harbor provisions that shield ISPs from liability. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), ISPs are shielded from liability for their users’ actions. Copyright filters could undermine these safe harbors, which have allowed the Internet to become the most important communications medium of the modern era.

  8. Copyright filtering could violate the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act. Copyright filtering could constitute unlawful interception under the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (ECPA).

Orphan Works: A Statement of Best Practices

The Society of American Archivists has released Orphan Works: A Statement of Best Practices.

Here's an excerpt:

"Orphan works" is a term used to describe the situation in which the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be identified and located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a manner that requires permission of the copyright owner. Proposed orphan works legislation, such as the Orphan Works Act of 2008 (H.R. 5889) and the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S.2913), would reduce penalties for infringement if an infringer "undertakes a diligent effort to locate the owner of the infringed copyright." This statement describes what professional archivists consider to be best practices regarding reasonable efforts to identify and locate rights holders. It is based on the authors' knowledge of the kinds of materials that are likely to qualify as orphan works

Fair Use Evaluator and Exceptions for Instructors eTool Released

The ALA Office for Information Technology Policy has released the Fair Use Evaluator and the Exceptions for Instructors eTool.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The Fair Use Evaluator is an online tool that can help users understand how to determine if the use of a protected work is a "fair use." It helps users collect, organize, and document the information they may need to support a fair use claim, and provides a time-stamped PDF document for the users' records. . . .

The Exceptions for Instructors eTool guides users through the educational exceptions in U.S. copyright law, helping to explain and clarify rights and responsibilities for the performance and display of copyrighted content in traditional, distance and blended educational models.

John Wiley & Sons to Use Attributor Anti-Piracy Service

John Wiley & Sons will use Attributor's anti-piracy service to track illegal use of its digital publications.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Attributor announced today that global publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc . . . has selected its anti-piracy service as a tool to identify unlawful use of its books, e-Books, and other content online and prevent use of the infringed copies. Attributor's technology monitors more than 35 billion pages, including hosting sites and link farms, quickly identifying unauthorized copies and taking action to remove them.

"When Wiley content appears, without permission, on Web sites where users share the content free of charge or sell it without authorization, authors are cheated of their rightful compensation for their work. This affects us all, since the loss of compensation is a disincentive to authors' creativity and innovation," said Roy Kaufman, Legal Director, Wiley-Blackwell. "Wiley's agreement with Attributor will greatly enhance our ongoing pursuit of anyone who willfully infringe upon our intellectual property and will enable us to cost-effectively scale our anti-piracy efforts across the Web."

"Should Copyright of Academic Works Be Abolished?"

Steven Shavell, Samuel R. Rosenthal Professor of Law and Economics at the Harvard Law School, has self-archived "Should Copyright of Academic Works Be Abolished?"

Here's an excerpt:

The conventional rationale for copyright of written works, that copyright is needed to foster their creation, is seemingly of limited applicability to the academic domain. For in a world without copyright of academic writing, academics would still benefit from publishing in the major way that they do now, namely, from gaining scholarly esteem. Yet publishers would presumably have to impose fees on authors, because publishers would not be able to profit from reader charges. If these publication fees would be borne by academics, their incentives to publish would be reduced. But if the publication fees would usually be paid by universities or grantors, the motive of academics to publish would be unlikely to decrease (and could actually increase)—suggesting that ending academic copyright would be socially desirable in view of the broad benefits of a copyright-free world. If so, the demise of academic copyright should be achieved by a change in law, for the 'open access' movement that effectively seeks this objective without modification of the law faces fundamental difficulties.

"A Networked Registration Scheme to Support Open Science"

Adrian Pickering, Christopher Gutteridge, and David De Roure have self-archived "A Networked Registration Scheme to Support Open Science" in the ECS EPrints Repository.

Here's an excerpt:

The Open Source and Open Science movements have demonstrated the success of distributed collaborative experimentation and intellectual property (IP) development. While those contributing to the effort may do so without seeking to secure IP rights, it is clear that credit and attribution are crucial to the scholarly lifecycle because they underpin reputation—when IP is created it is only fair that 'credit is given where credit is due'. We propose that there need to be systems in place, independent of the project, where the evidence of 'prior art' can be registered. The authors' thesis is that simply having such a system available will ensure proper behaviour between collaborators and foster higher productivity.

Repositories such as EPrints and myExperiment, which focus respectively on publications and digital 'research objects', can readily use such a system—the intellectual assets stored digitally in the repository can be registered by their owners. To achieve this with the necessary guarantees we need an appropriate registration scheme and architecture.

U.S. Copyright Office Proposes Rule Change for Mandatory Deposit of Electronic Works Published in the United States and Available Only Online

The U.S. Copyright Office is proposing a rule change for the mandatory deposit of electronic works that are published in the United States and are only available online. (Thanks to ResourceShelf.)

Here's an excerpt from the notice of proposed rulemaking:

The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is proposing to amend its regulations governing mandatory deposit of electronic works published in the United States and available only online. The amendments would establish that such works are exempt from mandatory deposit until a demand for deposit of copies or phonorecords of such works is issued by the Copyright Office. They would also set forth the process for issuing and responding to a demand for deposit, amend the definition of a "complete copy" of a work for purposes of mandatory deposit of online-only works, and establish new best edition criteria for electronic serials available only online. The Copyright Office seeks public comment on these proposed revisions.

"Antitrust and the Google Books Settlement: The Problem of Simultaneity"

Eric M. Fraser of the University of Chicago Law School has self-archived "Antitrust and the Google Books Settlement: The Problem of Simultaneity" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

Google Books represents the latest attempt at the centuries-old goal to build a universal library. In 2004, Google started scanning books from libraries around the world. Although it made copyright licensing agreements with some publishers, it did not obtain permission from each rights-holder before scanning, indexing, and displaying portions of books from the stacks of libraries. Unsurprisingly, authors and publishers sued for copyright violations. Google settled the class action lawsuit in a sweeping agreement that has raised suspicion from librarians, users, and the government. In this paper, I analyze the antitrust and competition issues in the settlement agreement. I find that the simultaneous aspects of agreements and pricing pose serious antitrust problems. The settlement effectively gives Google simultaneous agreements with virtually all the rights-holders to in-copyright American books. It also requires that Google set prices for books simultaneously. In a competitive market, both agreements and pricing would occur independently. Under current law, however, no potential competitor can make agreements with the rights-holders to orphan works. The simultaneity, therefore, concentrates pricing power, leading to cartel pricing (a problem under § 1 of the Sherman Act) and monopolization (a § 2 problem).