http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/12-4547
The content in this post was found at https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2014/06/10/hathi-trust-case-full-docket-available-justia/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
On Friday, Google filed for summary judgment in the Google Books case against the Authors’ Guild, renewing its argument that the entire project constitutes fair use. That company argues therefore that it does not need permission from authors in order to scan substantial portions of their work.
The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Monday is the first day of fall. But no fear, we already have a guess as to what the legal theme of the upcoming season might be: the scrutinized and/or rejected settlement.
Of course, we’ve written a lot about the rejected settlement in the Bank of America/SEC matter, but another big settlement is getting an exceedingly close look prior to a hearing before New York federal judge Denny Chin on Oct. 7.
That settlement, which we’ve also written a bit about before (here and here), involves Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. Over the weekend, the parties said they were hashing out what changes they are willing to make to the agreement following the Justice Department’s objections, formally articulated on Friday.
The content in this post was found at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/09/21/in-google-books-suit-parties-mulling-the-dojs-objections/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
When the US Copyright Office first heard about the proposed Google Books settlement, it found the idea a “positive development.” Then, after reading the fine print, it changed its collective mind, deciding instead that Google was really out to rewrite US copyright law through the courts.
Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, today explained to Congress (PDF) her office’s objections to what Google hoped to do:
The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Last Friday, the deadline passed for formal comments from parties interested in the Google Book Settlement, but the flow of less-formal comments doesn’t seem to have abated. The settlement would turn the search giant into the gatekeeper for out-of-print books, and a variety of groups have now expressed concern for the sweeping changes it would allegedly make to the management of copyrights. This week, however, the focus has shifted to Europe, where Google has faced opposition from France and Germany that has prompted it to offer some concessions to local publishers.
The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
The German Government has lodged an objection to the deal which will allow Google to continue to scan, and sell digitised copies of, many of the world’s in-copyright books.
The content in this post was found at http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10351 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
This Friday is the deadline for documents to be filed with the court that’s overseeing the Google book settlement, which will absolve the search giant from liability for its book scanning activities and set up an independent entity that will oversee the distribution of e-books from its digital stacks. Amazon, given its sales of both print and e-books, has joined a group that opposes the deal, but that hasn’t stopped it from filing an objection to it individually. Amazon’s lawyers spend over 40 pages arguing why that the deal should be rejected on copyright and antitrust grounds, while throwing in a very explicit admission that it’s bad for its business model.
The proposed settlement arose form a series of lawsuits that accused Google of violating copyrights via its book-scanning agreements with various libraries. The settlement would absolve the company of further claims and set up an independent body, the Books Rights Registry, which would oversee payments for authors arising from Google’s use of the works; the Registry would also have the right to license the digital library to commercial or private entities.
The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Raymond Nimmer:
Many have asked my opinion of the Google Settlement. I join the broad opposition to the “settlement”: This is a bad deal for everyone other than for Google (which will become an entrenched monopoly). It is also bad precedent, taking legislative prerogatives, the property rights of millions of people, and important commercial choices, and placing them in the hands of a few lawyers, a few companies, non-representative organizations, and a judge.
The content in this post was found at http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/intellectual-property-google-book-settlement-is-bad-for-law-copyright-owners-and-users.html and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
September 4 marks the deadline for authors and publishers to opt out of a proposed settlement allowing Google, Inc. to move forward with its plan to scan millions of books and make them available on an online database.
The settlement, reached last October after two years of negotiations, would involve lawsuits filed against Google for copyright infringement by requiring it to establish a system of identifying and compensating copyright holders.
However, as the September 4 deadline draws near, more and more opponents of the deal are speaking up. Recently, organizations such as the National Writers Union and entertainment agency William Morris Endeavor have come out against it. The controversy is likely to continue as few appear to understand all the details of the over 300-page settlement document.
The content in this post was found at http://jetl.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/controversy-still-surrounds-google-book-project/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
Today, with the announcement that Harvard University Press will publish 1,000 digitized books on Scribd, the academic world took one more step in its glacially slow march into the digital age.
Over ten years ago, when I first started my graduate work in the humanities, there was already much talk of the looming crisis in academic publishing. Print runs for academic works written by even major scholars in a given discipline are pitifully small—1,000 would be considered decent-sized. The work of junior faculty, who are trying to publish to beef up a CV, means that the runs are smaller still.
It’s very hard to make money on such small print runs, which result in books with sky-high cover prices and limited availability. All of this has made it harder for scholars to publish and harder for non-specialists to justify the effort and expense of obtaining good, scholarly work. In sum, the present situation benefits nobody—scholars, the public, or the financially strapped publishing houses.
Click here to read the rest of this article
The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
