Archive for the ‘Intellectual Property’ Category

U.S. Copyright Office Publishes Request for Comments on Facilitating Access to Copyrighted Works for the Blind or Other Persons with Disabilities

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

From the Summary:

The Copyright Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office seek comment on possible solutions to enhance the accessibility of copyrighted works for the benefit of the blind or other persons with disabilities. Comments are specifically sought on the objectives and potential impact on existing U.S. law of a draft treaty prepared under the auspices of the World Blind Union and proposed formally at the May 2009 session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the topics outlined in the supplementary information section of the Federal Register notice. Initial comments are due on or before November 13, 2009. Reply comments are due on or before December 4, 2009.

Access the Complete Federal Register Notice (3 pages; PDF)

Source: U.S. Copyright Office

Europe Urged to Hasten Book Digitisation

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

From the Article:

Information society and media commissioner Viviane Reding made the rallying call on Tuesday as the Commission announced its Communication on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, a strategy document that lays out measures to be taken to digitise and disseminate books in Europe.

“Europe should seize this opportunity to take the lead, and to ensure that books digitisation takes place on the basis of European copyright law, and in full respect of Europe’s cultural diversity,” Reding said in a statement on Tuesday.

She added: “Europe, with its rich cultural heritage, has most to offer and most to win from books digitisation. If we act swiftly, pro-competitive European solutions on books digitisation may well be sooner operational than the solutions presently envisaged under the Google Books Settlement in the United States.”

[Snip]

According to a European Commission spokesperson, the full Communication on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy will be released in full in the next few days.

Much More in the Complete Article

Source: ZDNet UK

See Also: European Commission to investigate copyright (via The Bookseller)

Google Book Search Tidbits

Monday, October 12th, 2009

+ Last week (Friday and Saturday), the D for Digitize Conference sponsored by the New York Law School to place in NYC. There were numerous panels (with a very impressive roster of speakers) discussing Google Book Search. You can review the conference program here. A video archive of the conference sessions is coming soon.

UPDATE: Here’s a report about the conference from LJ.

+ The Open Book Alliance (several library organizations are members including SLA) has a blog post with a bit about one topic discussed at the D for Digitize conference.

From the Blog Post:

Dan Clancy, engineering director for Google Books, apparently opened the door to the possibility of Google including ads on the institutional subscriptions they propose to sell to libraries. He was responding to keynote panelist Pam Samuelson, who passionately took issue with yet another revenue stream exclusively protected for Google in the settlement. Prof. Samuelson* had recently heard that the institutional subscriptions sold to research libraries would come along with advertising. [Snip}

Clancy did not rule out this approach, despite being given the opportunity to do so. “If we do..”, he stated, “…we would talk to…” subscription customers about an arrangement where customers would get a discounted subscription that comes with ads or pay more for no ads.

When pressed by Samuelson, Clancy indicated that while Google would talk to the research library customers about these arrangements, they were not expecting to talk to the academic, research and student communities who would use the service – and be served the ads, based of course on what they were reading.

[Snip]

Read the Complete Blog Post

Source: Open Book Alliance

* Professor Pamela Samuelson (a Law Professor at UC Berkeley) recently wrote a series of articles about Google Book Search for The Huffington Post. You can find links to them here.

Transparent Semantic Search Technology Comes to LexisNexis Patent Searching

Monday, October 12th, 2009

From the Announcement:

LexisNexis today announced the availability of transparent semantic search technology for its full complement of intellectual property (IP) research products – enabling users to find the most precise and relevant patent search results.

Through a development alliance with Dallas-based Pure Discovery, LexisNexis has become the first provider of legal information services to integrate the power of semantic search technology with familiar Boolean search technology, giving the user greater control over the patent research process via a simple, streamlined user interface that matches their typical daily workflow.

[Snip]

The new semantic search solution from LexisNexis and Pure Discovery, however, overcomes such challenges to accomplish four breakthrough objectives in online search:

Transparency: Each query is enhanced by the machine intelligence and shown to the user for their complete understanding and engagement. Increased control: Not only is the semantic search transparent, but users are in control with the ability to add, delete, increase or decrease the importance of all query words (concepts) in a unique visual query interface called a “querycloud.”

Fully federated: While LexisNexis maintains one of the largest full-text patent and non-patent literature databases in the world, its semantic search platform can associate semantic searches to virtually any index, whether it resides internally or on the web.

Scalability: The LexisNexis index includes semantic intelligence from more than 10 million full-text patent documents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s patent index, as well as Elsevier journal articles and other documents.

[Snip]

The new technology is now available through the patent research and retrieval service LexisNexis® TotalPatent™ and the automated patent application and analysis product LexisNexis PatentOptimizer. In addition, the functionality is also available through lexis.com.

Source: LN (via Business Wire)

See Also: Learn More About Pure Discovery

German Chancellor on Google Book Search

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

From the Article:

In her weekly video podcast, before Tuesday’s opening of the Frankfurt Book Fair, {German Federal Chancellor Angela} Merkel appealed for more international cooperation on copyright protection and said her government opposed Google’s drive to scan libraries full of books.

“The German government has a clear position: copyrights have to be protected in the Internet,” Merkel said, adding there are “considerable dangers” for copyright protection in the Internet.

“That’s why we reject the scanning in of books without any copyright protection — like Google is doing. The government places a lot of weight on this position on copyrights to protect writers in Germany.”
[Snip]
Merkel, who will open the world’s largest book fair in Germany’s financial capital, said there was a need to discuss the issue in greater detail in international institutions.

She did not, however, offer any concrete solutions.

Source: Reuters

+++ UPDATE: A text transcript of Merkel’s remarks is available (PDF) in German. We translated the document into English using Zoho Viewer and both Google Translate and Yahoo Babel Fish. Again, these are mechanical translations. Caveat Emptor!

+++ UPDATE: Here’s the actual video podcast (in German).

See Also: Book Trade Seeks a Deal with Google

The rest of the world — especially France and Germany — continues largely to view Google with suspicion. The company is sending its top lawyer to Frankfurt to engage once again with the industry.

“Books that were previously out of print will come back to life,” Santiago de la Mora, Google’s head of European print partnerships, told Reuters. “There are 1.8 billion Internet users. I’m pretty sure you can find readers for everything.”

The article also discusses ebooks and content piracy.

Source: Reuters

Press Review: Judge Chin Sets Nov. 9 Deadline For Revised Google Book Settlement

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

From the Wall Street Journal

At a meeting with reporters* in New York Monday, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt acknowledged that the parties may have to exclude orphan works from the settlement to get it approved.

The parties are also contemplating other modifications, including changes to the structure of the registry, the groups of authors and publishers that are charged with overseeing the settlement, setting some prices, and sharing revenue with copyright owners, say people familiar with the matter.

*in this article. (via WSJ). You can find two more reviews of the meeting from AllThingsD. and Search Engine Land.
** Brewster Kahle from the Open Content Alliance responds to some of the comments made by Sergey Brin.

From the NY Times:

The federal judge who is responsible for reviewing the Google book settlement that would create a vast digital library has set Nov. 9 as the date by which Google and its partners must submit a revised settlement for the court’s preliminary approval.
[Snip]
At a short hearing Wednesday morning in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Judge Denny Chin confirmed that the current settlement was no longer on the table.
[Snip]
Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild, said in an interview that the changes would be minor. “We would not be able to do it by Nov. 9” if they were more substantial, he said. “The core agreement is going to stay the same. We are amending limited portions of the settlement agreement.”

From the IDG News Service

“We appreciate the Court’s guidance and look forward to moving ahead. As we’ve said in the past and in the hearing today, we are considering a limited number of amendments to the agreement,” a Google spokeswoman said via e-mail on Wednesday.

“If approved by the Court, the settlement stands to unlock access to millions of books in the U.S. while giving authors and publishers new ways to distribute their work,” she added.

From the AFP:

An attorney speaking for the US Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers said the revised deal was on track.

“The parties have worked on a daily basis, assiduously,” Michael Boni said, and were “working around the clock.”

“We have gone a lone [sic] way to identify and negotiate amendments to the settlement,” he said.

Boni said the November 9 target for a preliminary hearing on the settlement was realistic and that “in the best case scenario we would target late December, early January for the final fairness hearing.”

Daralyn Durie, representing Google, also said the deal was within reach. “The parties’ expectation is that we will be able to present an amended settlement agreement,” she said

From the Open Book Alliance:

“Based on the court hearing today, one thing is clear — whatever revised settlement Google and its partners unveil on November 9th must be subject to full review and scrutiny by the vast array of stakeholders – authors, academics, consumer advocates, privacy groups, libraries, and others – who have spoken out.
[Snip]
“It’s also clear that the settlement partners have zero interest in creating an open process that takes input from critical stakeholders. Instead, Google and its partners are serving their private business interests and ignoring the public interest. They came to the courtroom without a single concrete recommendation of how they would address any of the problems with the original settlement. Instead, they proposed more of the same — secret, back room negotiations – rather than an open, transparent and collaborative process.”

From Bloomberg:

Chin today endorsed a proposal that would limit the time for opponents of the new pact to file court papers opposing it. He said opponents of the accord should voice comments only about new terms, not provisions that remain the same.
[Snip]
“Otherwise, it will be many, many, many months” before the case is resolved, he said.

Chin, who was nominated yesterday by President Barack Obama for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals, said he wanted to create a system by which parties objecting to the settlement may electronically file court papers, rather than hand-delivering them as previously done.

“In this case, of all cases, there should be an electronic way of handling this,” he said to laughter in the packed lower Manhattan courtroom.

From The Laboratorium (Professor James Grimmelmann)

Judge Chin asked about ways to make the submission process easier. The court has a single scanner, and spent four straight days scanning the hard-copy submissions. The Clerk’s office, however, is concerned about asking non-lawyers to use the electronic filing system. Judge Chin asked about the possibility of an email address for electronic submission of comments and objections, possibly through the settlement administration site. Boni said that the settlement agreement requires that objections be served on the parties, so they would be happy to take on the scanning burden.

From the Associated Press:

William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general, told the judge that the government has been in continuing discussions with the parties.

However, he said the government was not yet aware of what the final deal will look like.

He said he expected “meetings in the near term to go over whatever their proposal is.”

Cavanaugh asked that the judge give the government a week to 10 days after any deadline for objections to be submitted for the Justice Department to prepare its analysis of the new deal.

At one point, [Judge] Chin asked what will happen if negotiations break down and no deal is reached.

Google lawyer Daralyn Durie reassured the judge, saying: “The parties’ expectation is we will be able to reach agreement.”

From Reuters:

“I like the target date of early November. Targeting the changes is the right way to do it,” Chin said during a 15-minute long conference in court with lawyers for the parties and the U.S. Department of Justice.
[Snip]
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has said the Justice Department criticisms seem reasonable and the search engine giant is amenable to a few minor changes.

From AllThingsD

Though it’s not yet clear what form the revised settlement might take or what adjusted terms are being discussed, Google and the authors and publishers it has allied with it have quite a few critics to appease, including academics, librarians, privacy advocates, would-be rivals and the French and German governments.

From CNET:

A hearing on whether to approve that settlement was originally scheduled for Wednesday, but last month the publisher and author groups asked for more time to work out a new deal that satisfies the Justice Department’s concerns.

NY Times: In E-Books, It’s an Army vs. Google

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

From the NY Times Article:

A broad array of authors, academics, librarians and public interest groups are fighting the company’s plan to create a huge digital library and bookstore. Their complaints reached the ears of regulators at the Justice Department, which last month helped derail the plan by asking a court to reject the class-action settlement that spawned it.

[Snip]

Some analysts say the broad-based opposition to Google’s lofty plans was unprecedented and a harbinger of the intense scrutiny the company’s ambitious agenda will face.

“This was the first issue through which Google’s power became clearly articulated to the public,” said Siva Vaidhyanathan, associate professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia. “All sorts of people — writers, researchers, librarians, academics and readers — really feel they have a stake in the world of books.”

[Snip]

“The benefits far outweigh any of these criticisms that are being made, many of which are quite theoretical,” Mr. [David] Drummond [Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, Google] said. “We have a good process now for taking into account some of the objections.” He added: “The fact that there are some critics doesn’t mean you should be paralyzed and not do something that provides value.”

Much More in the Full Text of the Article

Source: New York Times

News from the Open Book Alliance: Libraries, Publishers and Leading Advocates Call for Open, Transparent Settlement Process in Google Book Search Case

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

From the News Release:

Dozens of leading academic, library, consumer advocacy, organized labor and publishing organizations joined the Open Book Alliance today in calling on Google and its litigation partners to create an open and transparent process to negotiate a settlement in the Google Book Search case. The parties published an open letter to Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, demanding that they include key stakeholders to represent the broad range of public interests in the mass digitization of books. Google and its partners abandoned a previous settlement proposed in the case after the U.S. Department of Justice and others criticized the deal and recommended that the court reject it, but Google and the plaintiff publishers continue to negotiate behind closed doors on a revised settlement proposal.

[Snip]

Joining the Open Book Alliance in calling on Google and its partners to open the process in service of the public interest are leading library associations such as the New York Library Association, the Ohio Library Council, the New Jersey Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association…

You can read the full text of the letter here. (2 pages; PDF)

Source: Open Book Alliance (via PR Newswire)

UPDATE: We’ve learned the the Open Book Alliance letter wasn’t the only letter sent today.

From an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Blog Post:

Today EFF along with the ACLU and the privacy authors and publishers they represent, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries and the Association of College and Research Libraries, CDT, EPIC, SFLC, Professor James Grimmelman sent a joint letter to Google urging it to include privacy protections along with its reconsidered Google Book Search Settlement.

Access the complete letter here (2 pages; PDF)

Presentation: Music Libraries in the Digital Age

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Here’s an item we just discovered from the National Library of the Netherlands. It might be of interest to you or someone you know.

From the Summary:

….The annual conference of the International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres (IAML) [took] place in Amsterdam [in July, 2009]. More than 500 visitors from 50 (mainly western) countries [met] in the new Amsterdam conservatory for a variety of lectures, discussions and workshops.

At the opening session (6th July) the keynote speech ‘The Sirens of Pirate Bay’ was held by dr. Martin Bossenbroek, director of Collections & Services at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek. He focused on the actual debate on copyright and its implications for (music) libraries. In his presentation the following items are addressed. Firstly, the far-reaching effects of the digital revolution for the media landscape as a whole and the music industry in particular. Secondly, it shows the extreme diverse reactions in society on the transformation of the media landscape and its implications for copyright. Finally, it poses – and answers – the most important question: how can librarians – including those far away from the turbulent pop music scene and devoted to classical music – cope with these shifting realities of the digital world?

Access the Presentation Slides, Embedded Videos, and Speech Transcript (21 pages; PDF, in English)

Source: Koninklijke Bibliotheek – National Library of The Netherlands

On Demand Digitization and Publishing: New York Public Library & Kirtas Technologies Partner to Make 500,000 Public Domain Books Available

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

Note: This is a fee-based service. Books cost $1.99.

From the Announcement:

Readers and researchers looking for hard-to-find books now have the opportunity to dip into the collections of one of the world’s most comprehensive libraries to purchase digitized copies of public domain titles. Through their Digitize-on-Demand program, Kirtas Technologies has partnered with The New York Public Library to make 500,000 public domain works from the Library’s collections available (to anyone in the world).

[Snip]

Using existing information from NYPL’s catalog records, Kirtas will make the library’s public domain books available for sale through its retail site before they are ever digitized. Customers can search for a desired title on http://www.kirtasbooks.com and place an order for that book. When the order is placed, only then is it pulled from the shelf, digitized and made available as a high-quality reprint or digital file.

[Snip]

What makes this approach to digitization unique is that NYPL incurs no up-front printing, production or storage costs. It also provides the library with a self-funding, commercial model helping it to sustain its digitization programs in the future. Unlike other free or low-cost digitization programs, the library retains the rights and ownership to their own digitized content.

Whether patrons are looking for a title about a president–such as, “Memories of President Lincoln,” by Walt Whitman–or by a president–”African Game Trails; An account of the African wanderings of an American hunter-naturalist,” by Theodore Roosevelt–The New York Public Library is the place to turn. Collections available on http://www.kirtasbooks.com are from NYPL’s General Research Division and include books from the local and U.S. history, genealogy, humanities and social sciences collections. Titles include several 19th century cookbooks, a first print edition of “Casey at the Bat” by Ernest Thayer, “The Origin of the Werewolf Superstition” (1909) by Caroline Taylor, and first edition version of Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick” from 1851.

Books cost $1.95 to digitize/publish.

Here’s a direct link to various collections (by source) Kirtas offers. The University of Pennsylvania, McGill University, Rochester Institute of Technology, McMaster University also work with Kirtas. According to the web site, nearly one million titles are available in the Kirtas database.

Source: Media Release, NYPL, Kirtas

On Piracy and E-Books

Saturday, October 3rd, 2009

From a NY Times Article:

You can buy “The Lost Symbol,” by Dan Brown, as an e-book for $9.99 at Amazon.com. Or you can don a pirate’s cap and snatch a free copy from another online user at RapidShare, Megaupload, Hotfile and other file-storage sites.

[Snip]

Total e-book sales [according to the AAP], though up considerably this year, remained small, at $81.5 million, or 1.6 percent of total book sales through July.

[Snip]

Adam Rothberg, vice president for corporate communications at Simon & Schuster, said: “Everybody in the industry considers piracy a significant issue, but it’s been difficult to quantify the magnitude of the problem. We know people post things but we don’t know how many people take them.”

[Snip]

Free file-sharing of e-books will most likely come to be associated with RapidShare, a file-hosting company based in Switzerland. It says its customers have uploaded onto its servers more than 10 petabytes of files — that’s more than 10 million gigabytes — and can handle up to three million users simultaneously. Anyone can .upload, and anyone can download; for light users, the service is free. RapidShare does not list the files — a user must know the impossible-to-guess U.R.L. in order to download one***.

Ed Note. *** Not so fast. We did just two or three minutes of searching using general purpose search engines and noticed that there are numerous keyword search tools to find and access content from the RapidShare database. They appear to be from third parties. Sometimes they’re not easy to use (of course, we didn’t test them all) and you’ll need the right tools to decompress certain file formats. But the point is that these search databases are available. After some brief testing of the four engines listed below, it appears that each RapidShare search engine is not tapping the complete RapidShare database since we received considerably different results from each search tool.

Four examples (we found more) are:

+ Rapid Library
+ RapidQueen
+ Rapid-Share-Search-Engine
+ RapidShareSearch.com

[Snip]

At my request, Attributor, a company based in Redwood City, Calif., that offers publishers antipiracy services, did a search last week to see how many e-book copies of “The Lost Symbol” were available free on the Web. After verifying that each file claiming to be the book actually was, Attributor reported that 166 copies of the e-book were available on 11 sites. RapidShare accounted for 102.

Much More in the Complete Article

Source: NY Times

Essay in the NY Times: Advantage Google

Saturday, October 3rd, 2009

This essay in the New York Times is an interesting read. It was written by Lewis Hyde from Kenyon College, where he’s a professor of creative writing. Hyde is also a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard.

The essay is about Google Book Search with a focus on copyright and orphan works. Here’s one very small portion of the two page essay:

Orphan works are all those Brats whose copyrights are still active but whose parents cannot be found. There are millions of them out there, and they are gumming up the world of publishing. Suppose a publisher wants to print an anthology of 1930s magazine fiction. Copyright now lasts so long (a century in many cases) that the publisher must assume that there are rights holders for all those stories. Suppose that half the owners can’t be found. What should the publisher do? Its lawyers will advise abandoning the anthology: statutory damages for copyright infringement now stand between $750 and $150,000 per instance. Less hypothetically, when Carnegie Mellon University tried to digitize a collection of out-of-print books, one of every five turned out to be orphaned. When Cornell tried to post a collection of agricultural monographs online, half were orphans. The United States Holocaust Museum owns millions of pages of archival documents that it can neither publish nor digitize.

Of more than seven million works scanned by Google so far, four to five million appear to be orphaned.

Access the Complete Essay

Source: Sunday Book Review, New York Times

ARL, ALA and ACRL Release Report, “The Google Books Settlement: Who Is Filing And What Are They Saying?”

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

This nine page report (PDF) was written by Brandon Butler.

From the Document:

The Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of College and Research Libraries have prepared this document to summarize in a few pages of charts some key information about the hundreds of filings that have been submitted to the federal district court presiding over the Google Books litigation.

Access the Complete Report (9 pages; PDF)

Sources: ARL, ALA, ACRL

Forbes Commentary: In Defense of Google Books

Friday, September 25th, 2009

From a Commentary by Quentin Hardy:

I do not often feel a lot of sympathy for large monopolistic corporations, particularly when they have some history of unilateral moves. In the case of Google Books, and all the negative attention it has received over the four years this case has gone on, I might make an exception.

[Snip]

If being in it for the money is a bad thing, then you could rightly call Google a bad actor. In fairness, you should also write off a good number of the organizations that have filed briefs against Google in the copyright settlement case–Amazon, Yahoo! and Microsoft, in all likelihood, were more concerned about competing with Google than about the world’s access to the cultural heritage of books going back centuries. Otherwise, perhaps they could have scanned and digitized all these volumes, then donated them to the United Nations or something.

And that gets to my sympathy for Google in this matter: It did something bold, and we are all better off for it.

Much More In the Complete Commentary by Quentin Hardy

Source: Forbes

See Also: As we said a few weeks ago, yes, of course, Google has scanned millions of out of-print titles to this point and made them available a variety of ways. However, this doesn’t mean that other organizations like The Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, ebrary***, International Children’s Digital Library and many other organizations like universities (e.g., University of Victoria, Canada**** and the University of Illinois) are doing some great work digitizing/scanning books and other materials that are often available online for free or for free via a local library. Want more free online books? Then visit the Online Books Page. It contains material from a wide variety of sources including Google. Just look at how much has been added from a variety of sources in the past few days.

*** Actually, anyone can access over 20,000 full text titles (new and recently published) online from ebrary. Simply head to http://shop.ebrary.com, register, put a minimum of $5 on a credit card and the online collection is yours to read online. You only pay (money deducted from your account) if you copy or print a page.

**** Some of the Digitization Work of Shakespeare Material from the University of Victoria, Canada
+ Direct Links to Digitized Folios/Quartos of Works by Shakespeare (Full Text)
A digitized play includes:
+ A Text Transcript
+ Digitized Images of Actual Pages
+ Another Digitized Page (Example 2)
+ Posted in Digitization Projects, Information Industry, Intellectual Property, Libraries and Librarianship | No Comments »

German Book Trade Slams EU Stance on Google Books

Friday, September 25th, 2009

From the Article:

Google has agreed a settlement with U.S. publishers who had accused Google of copyright infringement for scanning libraries full of books but, last week, the U.S. Justice Department urged a New York court to reject the deal.

“It is shameful that the European Union did not write a letter like the U.S. Department of Justice did,” Cristian Sprang, legal advisor to the German book trade association, told a news conference.

Source: Reuters

Google Book Settlement 1.0 Is History

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

A new article by UC Berkeley Law Professor (she also has an appointment from the School of Information), Pamela Samuelson. She has written several articles for The Huffington Post on the Google Book Settlement that are linked at the bottom of this post.

From the New Article:

A memorandum submitted in support of the postponement optimistically observes that the DOJ had recognized that “a properly structured settlement agreement in this case offers the potential for important societal benefits” and that DOJ was committed to “working with the parties constructively to address concerns raised by the United States.” It thus appears that DOJ will be actively participating in negotiations for a new settlement.

This is, however, pollyannish view of the situation. The GBS deal can’t be fixed by tweaking a few details. Reading through even a sampling of the hundreds of objections to the proposed settlement, one sees an amazingly diverse configuration of opponents and a vast array of problems that cannot be remedied by minor fixes.

Much Much More in the Complete Article

Source: The Huffington Post

See Also: Other Articles by Pamela Samuelson Appearing in The Huffington Post

+ DOJ Says No to Google Book Settlement (9/20/2009)

+ Why is the Antitrust Division Investigating the Google Book Search Settlement? (8/19/2009)

+ The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement (8/10/2009)

See Also: Press Review: Google Book Settlement Hearing Postponed

See Also: Press Review: U.S. Department of Justice Would Like to See Changes to Google Book Settlement

See Also: Press Round-Up: UC Berkeley Conference Regarding Google Book Search Settlement

ALA and ARL Submit Views as Copyright Office Extends Deadline for Comments on Mandatory Deposit for Electronic Works Published Only Online

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Back in July we posted about The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress asking for comments from the public about amending its regulations. Today, the deadline to submit comments was extended to October 16, 2009.

From the Post:

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.

Reply comments must be received in the Office of the General Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than October 16, 2009.

So far, seven comments have been received. You can read the full text of them here.

You’ll find comments (PDF) from:

+ Association of American Publishers, Inc.

+ American Library Association and Association of Research Libraries

+ Software & Information Industry Association

+ Newspaper Association of America

and others.

Source: Copyright Office, Library of Congress

DOJ Says No to Google Book Settlement

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Law Professor Pamela Samuelson from UC Berkeley (she has written about the Google Book Settlement before, see below) has posted a new article about the Department of Justice letter sent to Judge Chin on Friday.

From the Article:

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a “Statement of Interest” on September 18 recommending that Judge Chin disapprove the Proposed Settlement Agreement in the Authors Guild v. Google case. Although DOJ recognized that the public would benefit from greater access to books if the settlement was approved, it has concluded that the agreement in its current form does not satisfy legal requirements. The DOJ recommended that the litigants modify the agreement in some important respects before Judge Chin considers approving a settlement of the case. This is the most significant development since the settlement itself was announced.

Source: Huffington Post

See Also: Press Review+: U.S. Department of Justice Would Like to See Changes to Google Book Settlement (Posted on ResourceShelf 9/18)
Numerous sources are linked to in this press review.

See Also: By Pamela Samuelson, Berkeley Law Professor: Why is the Antitrust Division Investigating the Google Book Search Settlement? (via Huffington Post)

See Also: By Pamela Samuelson: Berkeley Law Professor on the “Audacity” of the Google Book Settlement (via Huffington Post)

UPDATE: 9/21: Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement (via NY Times)

Scribd Sued over Copyright

Monday, September 21st, 2009

From the Article:

The law firm of Camara & Sibley has decided to take on document-sharing website Scribd in a big way, seeking class action status against the site in a lawsuit filed Friday in a Texas federal court. The charge: like YouTube, Veoh, and other user-generated content sites, Scribd makes it just too easy to upload copyrighted content without permission, and the company should be held liable… and pay up.

Source: ars technica

See Also: Jammie Thomas lawyers file suit against Scribd (via News.com)

Scribd managers have “built a technology that’s broken barriers to copyright infringement on a global scale and in the process have also built one of the largest readerships in the world,” the attorneys representing the class wrote in the complaint. “The company shamelessly profits from the stolen copyrighted works of innumerable authors.”

See Also: Case Docket

See Also: Full Text of Complaint filed by Elaine Scott (22 pages; PDF)

Access Scribd

See Also: Scribd fires back, denies violating copyright (via News.com

The New Yorker on Google and the Judge

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Note: This following article from The New Yorker was posted BEFORE the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to Judge Chin. More about that in this press review.

From a New Yorker Blog Post by Anthony Graton

Even the libraries that have provided Google with its raw materials are not all happy with the result. The out-of-print books Google has digitized come from nonprofit institutions that built their collections as a public good. In return for pocket change—Google will contribute $125 million to create a nonprofit rights registry—these public treasures will now be monetized for the benefit of a private corporation. True, Google will give every public and university library one terminal where readers can access its entire collection. But these machines won’t be able to download or print texts—and you can imagine the lines. Libraries that want full access to all the books in Google will have to pay for the privilege, as well as for every download.

Google, with its mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” plans to turn itself into the biggest bookstore the world has ever known, and to make libraries pay for acting as its agents. It’s troubling that the libraries that already have the richest collections will also be the ones that can offer their users the full Google service. Harvard was one of Google’s original partners. But Robert Darnton, Harvard’s librarian and a fan and creator of digital projects, has ceased supplying books still in copyright to Google. As he has written, “To digitize collections and sell the product in ways that fail to guarantee wide access … would turn the Internet into an instrument for privatizing knowledge that belongs in the public sphere.” Other Google partner libraries, however, support the settlement and have criticized Darnton’s decision.

Source: The New Yorker