Once Again, US DoJ Opposes Google Book Search 218
angry tapir and several other readers passed along the news that the US Department of Justice has come out against the revised agreement to settle copyright lawsuits brought against Google by authors and publishers. This is a major blow to Google's efforts to build a massive digital-books marketplace and library. From the DoJ filing (PDF): "...the [Amended Settlement Agreement] suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation. As a consequence, the ASA purports to grant legal rights that are difficult to square with the core principle of the Copyright Act that copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright. Those rights, in turn, confer significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity — Google."
Opposes? (Score:5, Informative)
The department continues to believe that a properly structured settlement agreement in this case offers the potential for important societal benefits. The department stated that it is committed to continuing to work with the parties and other stakeholders to help develop solutions through which copyright holders could allow for digital use of their works by Google and others, whether through legislative or market-based activities.
Seemed to me they weren't happy with Google 'ownership' of orphaned works and the fact that it's "opt out" not "opt in" for authors [pcpro.co.uk]. I guess you could see that as opposition but basically the amended contract failed to satisfy them. That's why they're having a hearing on Feb. 18, 2010.
A deal this big is bound to have lengthy negotiations and investigations as it's truly game changing for everyone involved and the world at large.
Re:Yay! (Score:1, Informative)
Because Google is ignoring thousands upon thousands of people's copyrights who weren't part of the or reprensented by the publishing guild they made the deal with?
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
You know, an 'Orphaned Work' isn't just works where the copyright holder doesn't make themselves known. There are examples of where an organization has spent a great deal of time and effort to just follow the trail of ownership of copyright where the ownership has changed hands several times, and apparently has been forgotten even by the other owner. Many times even with great effort to establish the owner, it simply can't be found.
This is The Big Dance (Score:3, Informative)
The book industry is acting just like the music industry was in the early 2000's. Publishers should try to work with google instead of against them. It's in their (and the public's) best interest.
Substitute "Napster" for "Google" in your statement to see how wrong it is.
Everyone on both sides know the digital transmogrification of the book publishing industry is inevitable. But Google has been the Barbarian at the Tea Party, acting like submission to Mountain View was the best and only route authors and publishers could take. In walks Jobs, looking all natty with his turtleneck and iPad, with whispered promises of doing for the publishing industry with his blend of sleek device and e-commerce what he did for music. Then there's Amazon and Sony, both with vested interests in not killing the golden e-goose of digital book retailing. Google doesn't want this to play out, they're looking to brute-force their way in. Too fuckin' bad, sez me.
As a writer and a reader, I've got no problem with the iTunes-ification of publishing. As a consumer and a citizen, Google scares the hell out of me.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Informative)
The objection that the DoJ and other companies have is that Google is being granted a wide license by way of a class action settlement. Normally a company can't make a licensing agreement with all copyright owners without contacting each and every one of them. But since this is a class action settlement, all members of the class are automatically opted in to the agreement. Interestingly, all the publishers who sued Google in the first place have opted out of this particular arrangement (they negotiated better deals with Google). So this settlement is being agreed to by a group of publishers who have nothing to lose.
The only way a competitor could get a similar agreement is by being sued and hoping that a similar settlement is the end result.
The proper way for something like this to occur is for Congress to modify copyright law to allow any company to set up a similar service (potentially with a single entity in charge of distributing royalties and managing any opt-in/opt-out process).
Re:I agree with the DOJ (Score:4, Informative)
This is how fair use is defined by copyright law:
As you can see, the law leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and nothing in the above text rules out the possibility of a successful fair use defense when books are scanned for the purpose of making them searchable (not to be confused with making it viewable) online.
Re:Samuel Clemens (Score:3, Informative)
But you forget the next paragraph:
That's not what's happening here: it's the publishers themselves who are the biggest supporters of the copyright extensions. Digital distribution has changed the rules of the game, and Clemens' opinion can't be taken "as-is".
Re:copyright holders get to choose expression of a (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
And then there are the situations where the copyright owner is known, but they have no interest in continuing to make the work available because there's insufficient profit in it.
For example, the movies "Spartacus" and "Lawrence of Arabia" were almost lost because the copyright owners decided they weren't worth the expense of maintaining, so they didn't bother to keep copies [in70mm.com]. And those were both Oscar-winning movies released only 50 years ago. If Columbia and Universal had refused to fund the belated restoration efforts, both movies would have been irretrievable by the time the copyright ran out.
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Informative)
The NIH has a not-insubstantial annual budget of ~$30 billion.
Pfizer, by itself, had revenues of $48 billion last year.
Academic medical research is good at lots of things - developing new marketable drugs isn't one of them - nor is the government prepared to spend that kind of money.
We can't get the government to provide universal healthcare, what in the world makes you think that we can get the government to step up and cover pharma's R&D budget in the absence of patents?