U.K. Authors Threaten to Boycott Google Books (via The Times of London)

From the Article:

J K Rowling, Philip Pullman and other British authors are threatening to boycott Google’s new digital library.

The financial deal offered to authors by Google only applies to certain titles and has become a flashpoint between the online giant and those who say it is violating copyright in its quest to create the world’s biggest online library.

Under the deal, Google Books will carry books that are out of copyright, as well as “snippets” of in-copyright titles and the option to pay to read a full copy. The deal offers authors $60 per title that appears online plus a share of revenue.

&

Richard Wright’s Estate Calls Google Book Settlement ‘Grievously Flawed’ (via NY Times)

From the Article

In a last-minute statement (pdf) before a deadline to opt out of the Google Book Settlement, which would lead to the creation of a vast digital library, the estate of Richard Wright, author of “Native Son” and “Black Boy,” described the settlement as “grievously flawed.” The estate sent out its statement to media representatives on Wednesday, outlining several objections.

&

UPDATE: Amazon and Others Slam Revised Google Books Deal (via WSJ)

From the Article:

Amazon.com, one of the most outspoken critics of the original settlement, Wednesday filed an objection to the revised one, raising many of the same objections it made to the first. In particular, the books giant argued that the agreement overreaches and violates the U.S. Copyright Act. “The (settlement) continues to give Google exclusive rights likely to lead to a monopoly,” it read.

U.C. Berkeley Professor Pam Samuelson submitted an objection on behalf of a group of academic authors. “We do not believe that the settlement of a class action lawsuit is a proper way to make such a profound set of changes in rights of authors and publishers, in markets for books, and procedures for resolving disputes as the (settlement) would bring about,” the letter read.

From the Blog Post:

On January 22, the National Writers Union held its third and final briefing for writers still scratching their heads about the proposed Google Book Settlement. Those unable to attend in person can check out a recording of the event on NWU’s website here.

Just two days earlier, the American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA), the National Writers Union (NWU), and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) and the Internet Society’s New York Chapter (ISOC-NY) jointly sponsored a separate workshop to discuss the implications for writers. A recording of that event can be found here.

And last week, science fiction author Ursula Le Guin and 365 other authors have announced their intention to petition Judge Chin to ask that the U.S. “be exempted from the settlement”, and that “the principle of copyright, which is directly threatened by the settlement, be honored and upheld in the United States.”

At the Berkley event, noted legal expert, Berkley professor and GBS commentator Pamela Samuelson kicked off the presentation with a fair but succinct recap of the settlement to date and options available to the professional authors gathered in the room.

Beyond these binary choices, the crowd of professional communicators was (not surprisingly) flummoxed when they learned that, even if they did opt out of the settlement, Google would still likely scan their works. That the onus was on the author to file paperwork and chase after the infringer to remove their books from the database – or rather, move them into a “dark archive” – did not go over well.

Read the Full Text, Some Audio is Also Available

Source: Open Book Alliance
SLA and The New York Library Association are Members

See Also: Harvard Professor Lessig Calls GBS 2.0 “Path to Insanity” (via OBA)

See Also: For the Love of Culture: Google, copyright, and our future (by Lawrence Lessig, via The New Republic)

From the Article:

The families of the author John Steinbeck and the musician Woody Guthrie, who previously opposed the proposed Google Book settlement that would create a vast digital library of books, say that they now support it.

In a statement released Thursday by the Authors Guild, one of the parties to the settlement, Gail Steinbeck, the wife of Thomas Steinbeck, the author’s son, said “the majority of the problems that we found to be troubling have been addressed.”

[Snip]

In an e-mail to fellow authors cited in Thursday’s statement from the Author’s Guild, Ms. Steinbeck wrote that the revision “meets our standards of control over the intellectual properties that would otherwise remain at risk were we to stay out of the settlement.” She added that neither the Steinbeck nor Guthrie families would “initiate a separate lawsuit against Google.”

Source: Media Decoder, NY Times

From The Bookseller:

The French Publishers Association (Syndicat National de l’Edition, SNE) has approved about 10 pages of objections to the second draft of a settlement between Google and American publishers and authors.

SNE president Serge Eyrolles said at a new year reception that the objections, to be sent to Judge Denny Chin before 28th January, were different from those for the first draft agreement, and that some French publishers would also send their own individual objections. The first draft of the Settlement was thrown out, after the US Department of Justice objected to it.

Source: The Bookseller
Hat Tip: Teleread.org

From the Blog Post:

As the January 28 deadline for Google Books Settlement (GBS) 2.0 public comment quickly approaches, it is an excellent time to take a step back and remember the criteria that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will use to judge the quality of the revised settlement.

The DOJ called for several specific requirements including the following:

* Any forward looking business models must not use opt-out, but use opt-in for absent rightsholders

* Foreign rightsholders should be adequately represented

* Author/publisher representatives that are parties to the settlement agreement must be bound by the settlement and not have separate deals

* Funds escrowed from unclaimed works cannot be diverted to other rightsholders

* Book rights registry should have additional obligations to find absent rightsholders to avoid conflicts among class members

* Settlement notice needs to be more robust if broad class is being used

* Settlement cannot allow horizontal pricing agreements by rightsholders

* Settlement cannot create de facto exclusive copyright license for Google

* Settlement cannot rely on additional class action litigation to ensure competition

The Open Book Alliance has thoroughly analyzed GBS 2.0 to see if it was altered to allay the DOJ objections. While, some cosmetic alterations were made, the substance is still the same: GBS 2.0 imposes a Google monopoly and violates copyright laws and practices. If GBS 2.0 were a home remodel, Google re-arranged the furniture and changed the drapes but neglected to fix the gaping hole in the roof and the flooding in the basement.

Source: Open Book Alliance
Note: Included in the OBA membership are SLA and the NY Library Association

From the Blog Post:

The Open Book Alliance has been steadfast in its belief that the digitization of books is a seismic change that will help reduce the literary divide in our nation and our world, and open up new ways to more efficiently and thoroughly conduct research.

However, it is critical that the commercialization of books does not trump the benefits of their digitization. The current Google Book Settlement does just that.

While much debate over the past nine months has focused on the flaws of the Google Books Settlement, it is time that new solutions are proposed. Amending a flawed settlement is not an answer. As a result, the Open Book Alliance has drafted the key parameters of a proposed solution and today sent it to leaders in the U.S. Congress and a broad audience of digital book advocates and stakeholders.

The letter clearly outlines the way to fully maximize the potential of the mass digitization of books:

* Open Process: Only an open and deliberative conversation in Congress will appropriately weigh the concerns of all stakeholders and create bright-line laws that apply equally to all consumers, companies and stakeholders.

* Public Guardian: To ensure the widest participation by content holders and greatest public benefit, the digital book database should be entrusted to a neutral, civic, not-for-profit organization. Respected librarians, like Harvard’s Robert Darnton, have suggested a public guardian that is a not for profit or public sector library, such as the Library of Congress. In a similar vein, the governments of France and the Netherlands have entrusted public institutions with the administration of digital libraries.

* Public Interest: Any successful digitization effort must not be exclusive to a single for-profit company as a result of legal arrangements delivering unfair monopoly. It also must uphold the rights of authors and copyright.

It is time to start a new inclusive process that engages the broad audience of advocates sharing a passion for the digitization of books, promoting open competition and access to digital books for the widest number of people.

Source: Open Book Alliance
Note: SLA and the New York Library Association are Two of the OBA Members