Another debt ceiling debacle could sink the economy
Last year's Congressional debt standoff hurt consumer confidence more than the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Betsey Johnson and Justin Wolfers write. This time could be worse. Read more at Counterparties
Google's books plan hailed, reviled; no ruling
A 16th-century edition of predictions by Nostradamus, the first book to be digitised by Google from a collection of 500,000 at the Municipal Library of Lyon, is displayed by a librarian in this January 15, 2010 file picture.
Credit: Reuters/Robert Pratta/Files
NEW YORK |
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Google Inc was lauded as a visionary intent on spreading the world's knowledge and reviled as a copyright infringer cavalier about protecting users' privacy in a hearing on Thursday to discuss its plan to digitize millions of books.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement of a 2005 lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild, Google would pay $125 million to create a book rights registry, where authors and publishers would register works and be paid for books and other publications the search giant puts online.
Manhattan federal court Judge Denny Chin did not specify when he would issue a ruling.
"To end the suspense, I'm not going to rule today at this hearing," Chin said at the start of the proceeding. "There is just too much to digest."
Chin did seem concerned about a portion of the agreement that allows Google to put books online unless the author contacts the company to opt out. The provision is in conflict with normal copyright law which requires affirmative agreement.
Google counsel Daralyn Durie, who had used the word "evil" to describe discrimination discussed in a class action case cited as a precedent, seemed surprised when Chin shot back at her: "Some might say that copyright infringement is evil."
"Copyright infringement is evil if it is not compensated," she replied.
Lawyer David Nimmer for Amazon.com said that in Amazon's view, the deal essentially says, "The settlement agreement is lawful because the settlement agreement says the settlement agreement is lawful."
"That turns copyright law on its head," he said.
Durie defended opt-out as essential. "No one has even argued that the economic rights of these rights holders is negatively impacted," she added, estimating that half of the 10 million books covered by the settlement were still in print.
The judge seemed sympathetic to several critics who worried that Google had no specifics in its agreement to ensure reader privacy.
"How do you fix it? How is it fixable?" asked Chin.
One critic argued that Google's software was set up to allow Google to see what was actually read and to record notes that were taken. One suggested requiring Google to delete reader information after a limited time and only give it to law enforcement only on receipt of a court order.
Google's Durie acknowledged that some privacy would be lost by those who looked at the books on their personal computers.
"This service will be available at public libraries," she added, where readers would have anonymous access to the material.
The Justice Department shared the copyright concerns and had its own set of antitrust concerns, said William Cavanaugh, a Justice Department deputy assistant attorney general. "This may well be a per se violation of antitrust laws," he said.
Further, Google has made an inadequate effort to reach out to members, other critics complained.
"I never received notice," said Scott Gant, an author.
Critics of the proposed settlement include Amazon.com Inc and Microsoft Corp, while Sony Corp, which makes an electronic reader, favors the pact.
Google's plan has been praised for expanding access to books. But the U.S. Justice Department criticized it in legal briefs on February 4 on a variety of grounds, saying it potentially violated antitrust and copyright laws. The governments of France and Germany also oppose the deal.
But at least one legal academic spoke in favor of approving the settlement.
"Copyright is designed to be an engine of social development, not a brake on it," said Lateef Mtima of the Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice at the Howard University School of Law in Washington, D.C.
The case is The Authors Guild et al v. Google, Inc, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 05-08136
(Reporting by Grant McCool and Diane Bartz; Editing by Derek Caney, John Wallace, Phil Berlowitz)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
Failed business model! That said, and gotten out of the way, we move on, to repeating the mantra that I fervently hope will convince Sir Rupert Murdoch to destroy the failed business model of physical publishing, as he is destroying the failed business model of network television, at least in the soul destroying bundled butchery form in which it is practiced, in America.
Google, PayPal, and Sir Rupert must now agree to formulate and execute my Lomax two cent solution, to the multibillion dollar problem that is destroying the Lame Stream Media in particular, and the physical publishing industry, in general. Consumers of content must be enabled to pay their two cents for each article they choose to read, directly to the producer of their chosen content, with none of the collected millions of pennies paid to read the perfection of Charles Krauthammer’s 800 word article diverted to paying for union employees destroying trees, or hauling them to mill, press, newsstand, home and then our landfills. The same goes for the world’s books also made available in Google’s Global Free Library, at no cost whatever, for all the children who will never see more than a few printed books, and presented for pay, on a trust but verify honor system, for those folks who have the where withal necessary to click on the author’s payment line, after the standard teaser allowance, or where ever the best authors choose to put their pay me now, click to read on, line. Billions of readers of a dozen or a few online media outlets daily, are ready to put a PayPal Googler’s $500.00 deposit up, the day their geeks get the “how to do it securely” bits worked out.
Sir Rupert must strike, again, to make another bold step change to an industry, as with Fox and the WSJ, albeit it means the immediate destruction of billions of dollars of his family owned monopoly infrastructure. Since that union driven waste of resources was devised, back in the day, for controlling writers, artists, and their fans, or herding cats, if you will, and is doomed to extinction in any event, being the first adapter is sure to save and make Sir Rupert’s family more money, in the long run.
Having lived over half a century with my choices of content limited to those producers willing/chosen by the wrong people, to kiss their publishers’ rings, and readers forced to choose a draught of one flavor of Koolaid, or another, I look forward to another Murdoch driven epiphany. The Wild-West content approach possible with the proposed Lomax micro payment scheme, for content producers, will make Fox New’s long overdue destruction of the insulting American network television industry appear as a mere appetizer to billions of written content consumers, starved for fair and balanced content to buy at a fair price, and enjoy at our leisure, without bundled and biased garbage intruding on our enjoyment.
We want to pay our writers directly, with the free market shaping the systems that deliver us content, and we will not abide any approach that limits the anarchy apparent in Sir Rupert Murdoch’s Market Watch commentary approach. That is: with 5000 characters allowed per comment, with it all archived to embarrass either writers or their detractors, non-censored, and only mildly refereed. Basically it is polite combat, encouraged as commentary.
Fair and balanced, open commentary began, and has been refined, in Market Watch. It has been increasingly emulated, albeit poorly executed in some outlets. I have repeatedly called for, this free for all approach, in NYT, and throughout the industry, by media outlets hoping for any sort of survival, in any form. We welcome the glimmer of a chance, however slight, to see our comments appear in the NYT, WP, and other outlets that have eliminated any hint of sapient conservative writings, photos, or video, for the first half of my life. On the other hand, we will continue to revel in submitting our often rejected NYT, WP and CBS commentary, including this comment of course, to MW, and other Rupert outlets, where they are published, instantly, as “delayed for moderation continues, at the usual suspects less welcoming websites.
Then, we wait with bated breath, to see if our musings elicit the “User xxxxxxxxx21xx is banned”, response with which CBS celebrates each of my test submissions. Regardless of the moderator’s reasoning, we celebrate the simple joy of seeing moderation equal censorship, in any of the usual suspects among the Lame Stream Media, since censorship, or hidebound bias, will absolutely be the engine of their declines and/or demise, depending on how wisely they choose their approach to moderation/censorship.
Follow Reuters