The recent Google Book Settlement objection raised by Scott Grant caught the attention of many. But what did it mean and was it correct in its legal assumptions? We read James Grimmelmann’s take on the objection with interest and would urge you to do the same, 'GBS: Scott Gant's Attack on the Class'
‘This is a very good brief. It is the best-written and sharpest filing I have seen in the case. Only the proposed settlement itself tops it in imagination…’
James Grimmelmann is an Associate Professor at New York Law School, where he is affiliated with the Institute for Information Law and Policy and write and teaches on intellectual property and Internet-related subjects.
Showing posts with label James Grimmelmann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Grimmelmann. Show all posts
Monday, August 24, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Grimmelman Speaks Up On The Google Settlement
As the Google settlement draws ever closer everyone is increasingly being asked to stand up and be counted and some of the real position start to become clearer.
We would recommend James Grimmelman’s article ‘Speaking Up On Book Search’ Grimmlemann, the The New York Law School's Institute for Information Law and Policy and their lawyers Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard, LLP have asked the court hearing the Google Book Search case to let them file a brief amicus curiae. Their brief will explain to the court why the case is all about the orphans.
The linked article also contains the letter of submission to the court.
There are those who want to change contracts and have ob reflection always done so. The want rights reversals to be anything of the past and to use POD and ebooks to effectively keep books in print. The only problem is that the original contract didn’t always know the future. Some want the change the revenue spilt and may belong interestingly to the previous group too.
There are those who actually want to free the orphan works and have fought hard to push legislation through to achieve this end. These are not passed yet but are close. They genuinely want lost books to be available for all in a similar way that public domain works are today. The challenge as always is the lack of records and the further back towards 192X you go the murkier it becomes.
There are those who want to revisit copyright full stop and believe that extending copyright from 56 years to life plus 75 years was a mistake and is should come down as it doesn't serve the public.
Some will support Google’s current settlement as a means to an end and not perfect but better than today. These may also believe that anyone can opt out and if they don’t can collect retrospectively. They will accept the digital exclusive monopoly that will be created because they believe it to be in the public interest. Some may say that where the US goes others will follow and we all know Google emissaries are working hard to spread the word.
So, we face a moral question whether if is right to take and seek legal blessing to do so, works that the law doesn’t permit today. The agreement is about whether those not represented can be and whether the change should be universal to all or restricted to one company to commercially exploit to the legal exclusion of others?
As an industry everyone is negligent in not building a rights repository and clearing house but some would argue that to be bribed into having one is not necessarily justification for granting exclusive rights to works whose ownership today is unclear.
We would recommend James Grimmelman’s article ‘Speaking Up On Book Search’ Grimmlemann, the The New York Law School's Institute for Information Law and Policy and their lawyers Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard, LLP have asked the court hearing the Google Book Search case to let them file a brief amicus curiae. Their brief will explain to the court why the case is all about the orphans.
The linked article also contains the letter of submission to the court.
There are those who want to change contracts and have ob reflection always done so. The want rights reversals to be anything of the past and to use POD and ebooks to effectively keep books in print. The only problem is that the original contract didn’t always know the future. Some want the change the revenue spilt and may belong interestingly to the previous group too.
There are those who actually want to free the orphan works and have fought hard to push legislation through to achieve this end. These are not passed yet but are close. They genuinely want lost books to be available for all in a similar way that public domain works are today. The challenge as always is the lack of records and the further back towards 192X you go the murkier it becomes.
There are those who want to revisit copyright full stop and believe that extending copyright from 56 years to life plus 75 years was a mistake and is should come down as it doesn't serve the public.
Some will support Google’s current settlement as a means to an end and not perfect but better than today. These may also believe that anyone can opt out and if they don’t can collect retrospectively. They will accept the digital exclusive monopoly that will be created because they believe it to be in the public interest. Some may say that where the US goes others will follow and we all know Google emissaries are working hard to spread the word.
So, we face a moral question whether if is right to take and seek legal blessing to do so, works that the law doesn’t permit today. The agreement is about whether those not represented can be and whether the change should be universal to all or restricted to one company to commercially exploit to the legal exclusion of others?
As an industry everyone is negligent in not building a rights repository and clearing house but some would argue that to be bribed into having one is not necessarily justification for granting exclusive rights to works whose ownership today is unclear.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Great Book Bank Robbery, Part 17: The US Debate
The US Debate has started over the Google Book Search settlement with two big debates taking place at Georgetown and Columbia. Some interesting blogs have started to appear from leading publishing players. Importantly the clock keeps ticking ever closer to 5th May.
Some perspectives worth considering:
Congressional Research Service
The Google Library Project: Is Digitization for Purposes on Online Indexing Fair Use Under Copyright Law? by Kate M Manuel, Legislative Attorney
This charts the proceedings and outlines the settlement with respect to US law and draws no conclusions but asks many questions.
Google and the Zombie Army of Orphans by James Grimmelmann, Associate Professor at New York Law School, where he is affiliated with the Institute for Information Law and Policy. James spoke at both the Georgetown and Columbia debates. Below is a short extract on his thinking.
Instead, this is a structural settlement; it reshapes the entire book industry by giving Google and Google alone access to this comprehensive out-of-print backlist. To make that happen, the settlement takes away the rights of people who aren’t before the court. Indeed, knowing what we do about the orphan works problem in copyright law, we know that these absent class members are highly unlikely to be able to do anything about this massive giveaway to Google taking place supposedly in their name.
It’s a version of Russell’s paradox, applied to class action litigation. There’s a class here that consists of all people who don’t realize they’re part of it. Under the guise of this class action, the named plaintiffs have been able to use the huge collection of orphan works copyrights as a bargaining chip. The named plaintiffs negotiated away everyone else’s rights, lining up all those millions of books for Google’s benefit. The orphans have become zombies, raised from the dead by the dark magic of a class action, turned into a shambling army under Google’s sole control.
The Library law blog:
Google Books Settlement at Columbia: Part 1
Google Books Settlement at Columbia: Part 2
Mary Bet Peters, the Register of Copyrights, suggests that huge public policy issues raised by the settlement may be better addressed through legislation and noted that not one member of Congress has asked the Copyright Office to comment on the settlement!
Randal C. Picker from the University of Chicago Law School is ‘troubled’ by the consumer purchase model found in the settlement saying the pricing algorithm is aimed maximizing revenue from sales, which sounds a lot like antitrust to him. Also that the settlement allows Google and the Registry to turn orphan works into a private public domain.
It was interesting that all speakers said that they found the settlement difficult to read and understand and these were copyright and legal experts!
We did a search on ‘Great Book Bank Robbery’ on this blog and discovered that this is the 17th article we have written on the subject. We see the US is now starting to debate the issues but ask where the UK and European debate is and is there going to be an open debate at LBF and the BA conference similar to that now taking place in the US?.
Some perspectives worth considering:
Congressional Research Service
The Google Library Project: Is Digitization for Purposes on Online Indexing Fair Use Under Copyright Law? by Kate M Manuel, Legislative Attorney
This charts the proceedings and outlines the settlement with respect to US law and draws no conclusions but asks many questions.
Google and the Zombie Army of Orphans by James Grimmelmann, Associate Professor at New York Law School, where he is affiliated with the Institute for Information Law and Policy. James spoke at both the Georgetown and Columbia debates. Below is a short extract on his thinking.
Instead, this is a structural settlement; it reshapes the entire book industry by giving Google and Google alone access to this comprehensive out-of-print backlist. To make that happen, the settlement takes away the rights of people who aren’t before the court. Indeed, knowing what we do about the orphan works problem in copyright law, we know that these absent class members are highly unlikely to be able to do anything about this massive giveaway to Google taking place supposedly in their name.
It’s a version of Russell’s paradox, applied to class action litigation. There’s a class here that consists of all people who don’t realize they’re part of it. Under the guise of this class action, the named plaintiffs have been able to use the huge collection of orphan works copyrights as a bargaining chip. The named plaintiffs negotiated away everyone else’s rights, lining up all those millions of books for Google’s benefit. The orphans have become zombies, raised from the dead by the dark magic of a class action, turned into a shambling army under Google’s sole control.
The Library law blog:
Google Books Settlement at Columbia: Part 1
Google Books Settlement at Columbia: Part 2
Mary Bet Peters, the Register of Copyrights, suggests that huge public policy issues raised by the settlement may be better addressed through legislation and noted that not one member of Congress has asked the Copyright Office to comment on the settlement!
Randal C. Picker from the University of Chicago Law School is ‘troubled’ by the consumer purchase model found in the settlement saying the pricing algorithm is aimed maximizing revenue from sales, which sounds a lot like antitrust to him. Also that the settlement allows Google and the Registry to turn orphan works into a private public domain.
It was interesting that all speakers said that they found the settlement difficult to read and understand and these were copyright and legal experts!
We did a search on ‘Great Book Bank Robbery’ on this blog and discovered that this is the 17th article we have written on the subject. We see the US is now starting to debate the issues but ask where the UK and European debate is and is there going to be an open debate at LBF and the BA conference similar to that now taking place in the US?.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)