TweetAfter prolonged discussions of various positions (pro and con) on the Google book settlement, we have a decision. From his New York court, Judge Denny Chin has rejected the settlement, as going too far. The court concluded that the $125 million deal would allow Google (already a virtual monopoly) to "exploit" books without the permission Read More
Writers and Editors (RSS feed)
NYC judge rejects Google book settlement
March 22, 2011
Tags:
Google Book Settlement
3 Comments
Comments
Mar 23, 2011 8:23 AM EDT
Another reaction:• Judge rejects Google's attempt to create a universal library (Laurie Segall, CNN Money 3-22-2011)."Google's settlement agreement is a complex, 166-page document. While the company took pains to protect the rights of copyright holders -- only tiny snippets are revealed from in-print books -- it put the burden on authors and publishers to police their works' inclusion in the archive. Google will remove books on request, but without an explicit request, it will otherwise digitize anything it can get hold of.That didn't sit well with Judge Chin. He also expressed concern over the agreement's handling of "orphaned" books -- works that are still under copyright, but no longer in print."'The questions of who should be entrusted with guardianship over orphan books, under what terms, and with what safeguards are matters more appropriately decided by Congress than through an agreement among private, self-interested parties,' Chin wrote in his ruling."
- PM
Mar 25, 2011 8:28 AM EDT
And another: Google Books: Headed for the Bonfire? (Erik Sherman, BNET Wired In blog, 3-23-11, which links to his earlier posts). Sherman writes:"The two sides negotiated a highly controversial settlement that drew extensive criticism from the Department of Justice, including the following: * "Class action suits generally address past actions. This one allowed Google to display copyrighted works in the future for anyone who did not opt out of the agreement. * "It seemed questionable that any representative could adequately represent all rights owners, especially those who were unreachable but who owned rights to books that were under copyright protection but out of print. * "Google needed active permission to use the in-print works but not out-of-print. Rights owners that did not claim money within five years would forfeit their money to those already registered. So the deal was stacked in the favor of those with rights to books currently in print, even though Google wanted to scan and display the out-of-print books."
- PM
Feb 08, 2016 10:18 AM EST
For updates on the Google Book settlement, go here:Google Book Settlement (Pro and Con)
- PM