Very good report from the Conference at Columbia Law School Friday, 13 March, on "The Google Books Settlement: What will it mean for the long-term?<http://kernochancenter.org/Googlebookssettlement.htm>". If you weren't concerned about the implications of this class action settlement before, you will be after reading this.
------------------------------------------------------------------ "[Register of Copyrights Mary Beth]Peters's talk for me was an illustration of the important issues at stake in the settlement. We have a regulatory mechanism in place to ensure that works can be used in new and creative ways while at the same time respecting the rights of rights holders. It is called copyright law. The Google settlement may make the careful balances found in copyright law (as well as the public procedures to change it) moot, replacing them with private contractual arrangements instead. ...Most disturbing of all was Peters's admission that not one member of Congress has asked the Copyright Office to comment on the settlement - even though it may fundamentally change how Americans can access and use copyrighted information. This might be because the enormous sea-change that the Settlement represents has not sunk in with the public. For example, the Copyright Office was worried that there might be a huge rush to register works just prior to the Jan. 2009 deadline in order that they would be eligible to be included in the settlement. Only two publishers, however, sought to register their past publications. (To me, this is also more evidence of how we have to live with copyright rules that were designed to serve and protect a miniscule portion of the country's creative output, but in the process throttle other types of creativity.) But while the public might not understand how important the Settlement is, I would have assumed that the Copyright Office does. I was therefore disappointed to learn that it will not be commenting on the proposed settlement... ...With the digital files, Google considers the[m] to be its property, and places restrictions on the files: see 3.12 in the settlement. It also places restrictions on the use of the digital files, such as limiting certain users to nonconsumptive research - you can use the books so long as you don't read them. Use is also limited to qualified users, and for-profit entities can only use research corpus with G[oogle's] & R[egistry]'s consent. Google is allowed to use the digital files in a number of ways that may help its business model (search and advertising). ...In the settlement agreement, only Google gets to make use of orphan works - those works whose rights holders [d]o not announce themselves to the Registry. The Registry would be able to offer license terms to others for those works with "active rights holders" who have made themselves known to the Registry, but they cannot license works from "non-active rights holders." ...Even more troubling, the royalties from the use of the orphan works go not to the holders of the rights in those works, but to all the other active authors and Google. In Picker's view, the settlement allows Google and the Registry to turn orphan works into a private public domain. ...There seemed to be a lot of concern from the audience that the Registry has no bylaws, no public means of selecting members, no guaranteed international participants (even though all international authors and publishers are swept into the settlement). Adler's response: NY State law will govern it and ensure that the public interest is protected. My analysis: the upcoming wars between authors and publishers are going to be fierce. " http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/03/google-books-settlement-at-columbia-part-1.html http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/03/google-books-settlement-at-columbia-part-2.html
