Digital Media

A revised settlement filed late Friday over Google's right to scan digital books places additional limits on the company.

The settlement allows out-of-print books from only English-speaking countries to be scanned, restricts the ways that Google can make money from scanning and digitizing out-of-print books, and requires a registry to seek out copyright holders who do not come forward.

The amended settlement comes after Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted on Monday a deadline extension to the parties to try to resolve issues that the U.S. Department of Justice had with the original October 2008 settlement.

The settlement now applies only to out-of-print books registered with the U.S. Copyright office or published in the U.K., Australia, or Canada--countries that have a common legal heritage and similar book industry practices--according to the FAQ on the revised settlement.

Each of those countries will have an author and a publisher seat on a Book Rights Registry board, a nonprofit that will be responsible for paying authors and publishers.

The Book Rights Registry will be required to search for copyright holders who have not yet come forward and to hold revenue on their behalf, under the revised settlement. An independent fiduciary approved by the court will make decisions regarding unclaimed works.

Readers will be able to preview and purchase books, institutions can buy subscriptions, and libraries will have free access at designated terminals. The revised settlement limits Google's future business models from the works to individual subscriptions, print-on-demand, and digital downloads. The company will need to get approval from the registry's board and provide notice to all claiming copyright holders before implementing any of the business models.

Copyright holders can now choose to make their books available for free or allow reuse under Creative Commons, as well have the option to modify or remove restrictions placed on Google's display of their books, such as limits on the number of pages that users can print.

The settlement still allows any bookstore to sell online access to out-of-print books covered by the settlement, including unclaimed books. Copyright holders will still receive 63 percent of such revenue, while retailers will keep the majority of the remaining 37 percent.

A portion of the revenue generated from unclaimed works may be used to locate copyright holders after five years and will not be used for the registry's general operations or redistributed to other copyright holders as previously planned. After 10 years, the registry may ask the court to distribute these funds to nonprofits.

The Book Rights Registry will now hold unclaimed funds for 10 years, instead of five. After that time, the funds will go to nonprofits in the English speaking countries.

The Registry also is prohibited from sharing pricing information with anyone but the book's copyright holder, according to settlement. Authors and publishers will have until March 31, 2011, to make claims for the $60 to $300 per-book-digitization payments, and have until March 9, 2012, to remove works from Google's database.

The revised settlement makes it clear that Google will not display any content by default from works that are for sale as new internationally, which are considered commercially available. In addition, it includes language that specifies that Google will not share any private information with the registry without valid legal process.

Authors and publishers from outside of the covered countries can still enter into promotional and revenue-generating programs through Google's Partner Program.

"The changes we've made in our amended agreement address many of the concerns we've heard (particularly in limiting its international scope), while at the same time preserving the core benefits of the original agreement: opening access to millions of books while providing rightsholders with ways to sell and control their work online," Dan Clancy, Google Books engineering director, said in a statement.

"We're disappointed that we won't be able to provide access to as many books from as many countries through the settlement as a result of our modifications, but we look forward to continuing to work with rightsholders from around the world to fulfill our longstanding mission of increasing access to all the world's books," Clancy said.

According to Google's FAQ, the court will create a timeline for the revised settlement, "which will likely include a notice period, an objection period, and a final fairness hearing in early 2010."

Google is seeking rights to scan and display out-of-print books as part of a larger effort to create the modern day equivalent to the Library of Alexandria. Opponents argue that the settlement puts too much power in the hands of one company.

In September, the Justice Department voiced objections to the proposed settlement on antitrust grounds. The agency was bothered by the fact that Google and the Books Rights Registry, a nonprofit that will pay authors, would have sole control over the pricing of institutional subscriptions to the digital library. The DOJ also raised questions about whether the proposed settlement complied with Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, as well as copyright law in general.

Google first announced plans in 2003 to make books searchable and has hit snags with its efforts since, being sued by authors and facing opposition internationally.

Medpedia, a collaborative project for medical information launched in February, is getting beyond the medical-data basics as it adds answers, alerts, and analysis.

The nearly year-old Medpedia grows up with the addition of three key features.

(Credit: Medpedia)

Founded on the noble and semipractical system of providing free online medical information generated for and by physicians, journals, schools, patients, and more, Medpedia's three stated goals are to be collaborative, interdisciplinary, and transparent. The idea is to maximize knowledge and minimize the kind of screwing around that continually threatens the efficacy of other wiki-based projects. Of course, the extent to which this is successful hinges on the quality, integrity, and transparency of the editors.

While Medpedia uses the open-source software Mediawiki (also used by Wikipedia), it is less collaborative than the vast encyclopedia site, allowing only physicians and Ph.D.s approved by an editor to contribute to and edit articles. (The less medicine-literate masses are allowed to create accounts and suggest changes, but not actually make them.)

The jury's still out on whether Medpedia will be big enough to be a successful repository of up-to-date information and tame enough to be useful, but three new features, announced this week, might at least help push it out of beta incubation:

Medpedia Answers is a Q&A feature, collecting questions and answers about health, medicine, the body, etc., tagged for search optimization, and pushed to relevant articles and patient communities. Anyone who takes the time to create a profile can contribute to this section, with a top-contributors list cluing in users to which answers are written by the most informed (and involved) users.

Medpedia Alerts aggregates health and medical-news alerts. Anyone with an account can submit here as well, but this section appears intended to work something like Google Reader, with all sorts of feeds plugging into the platform.

And finally, Medpedia News & Analysis lets a wide range of sources accepted by the Medpedia community self-organize by category, and tag and cross-link to articles. This section is not, strictly speaking, licensed by Medpedia, so copyright is held by the authors themselves, which could prove tricky, as Medpedia hosts content that may or may not be allowed to be there.

Since Medpedia went live earlier this year, it has drawn thousands of members, including physicians, researchers, organizations, and experts contributing to its growing knowledge base. Plus, it has the likes of Harvard, Stanford, the National Health Services, and American Heart Association participating. Will Medpedia's less democratic editing system prove more bulletproof than Wikipedia's? So far, so good.

For Madison Avenue, Facebook just got a little less free.

Last week, the massive social network announced that brands, advertisers, and marketers that want to run contests or sweepstakes on its platform have to go through an approval process first.

Getting that approval could be a new revenue stream for Facebook: according to multiple sources in the marketing industry, they're being told that running a promotion in a Facebook application or "fan page" requires buying ad space too.

It's pricey. The minimum ad buy is $10,000 for 30 days, using Facebook's self-service advertising system, according to documents seen by CNET, or $30,000 for 30 days of Facebook home page ads. Priority in the approval process will be scaled, based on how much advertising space has been purchased. It's a move that one marketing industry professional called, in perhaps a bit of hyperbole, "a little Death Star-ish."

A Facebook representative declined to confirm and said the company did not have any comment beyond official documents released on its Facebook Marketing Solutions page.

Let's step back. Cracking down on contests and promotions might seem draconian, but it's actually important for Facebook: the U.S. state and federal laws that govern sweepstakes are extremely complicated, and by allowing only approved contests, Facebook is making sure that its bases are covered.

"Any promotion that any brand, product, or company would run has to have a terms of service against it," said Gunter Pfau, CEO of the Stuzo Group, an agency that has developed numerous Facebook contests and sweepstakes for clients. "Also, depending on the prize value, they need to be filed with various state regulatory agencies."

What, exactly, is new for contests? If a brand is running a contest on its fan page, it has to be handled through an embedded, separately developed application--not, for example, in the page's "wall." Promotions also can't involve Facebook users manipulating their user photos or status messages specifically for the contest.

Legal experts agree that this is necessary. "The (new Facebook) guidelines really cover only a narrow subset of promotions, specifically sweepstakes, contests, and similar competitions," explained Thomas Williams, a partner at the Chicago law firm Howrey, who specializes in trademark law. "That type of contest or promotion is governed by a myriad of state and federal regulations, so what I think Facebook is attempting to do here is merely shield itself from liability that arises out of its users' potential violations of these laws."

Williams continued: "I think it's a prudent and reasonable step on Facebook's part. There are lawyers who specialize in sweepstakes law, and there really are a lot of twists and turns to it."

One thing it'll also do, Stuzo Group's Gunter Pfau explained, is keep dishonest campaigns and promotions off the Facebook platform. "I think it's great news for consumers," he said. "I think what Facebook is doing is really laying these guidelines in place for companies to protect consumers more."

But what about the new ad spend requirements? Facebook has historically pitched its developer platform and fan pages as a free way for advertisers and marketers to tap into the power of "the social graph"--its 300 million-plus active users and their connections to one another. And while it's clear that the company sees these free pages and applications as a stepping stone for ad dollars--Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, for example, regularly gives Madison Avenue talks about the company's "engagement ads"--it doesn't have a long track record of requiring advertisers to pay for something that used to be free.

"It makes sense for Facebook, but (it's) a little discouraging to advertisers," commented Alisa Leonard-Hansen, who holds the title of social-media evangelist at digital-marketing firm iCrossing. "Facebook is continually trying to discover new ways to monetize, and they picked up on the trend that advertisers were using their pages to run contests and other promotions. I think Facebook was looking to be able to benefit from this marketing trend."

The ad spend requirements, too, could be considered partial compensation for the new human resources required in Facebook's approval process. Each company running contests on Facebook now has a designated advertising sales representative, and fan pages will continue to have to be policed for potential violations of both advertiser regulations and sweepstakes law.

There might not be a lot of friction as the new regulations go into effect. Companies that don't run contests on their Facebook fan pages or applications won't be affected. Even some that do, especially small-scale fan pages that could easily go unnoticed by Facebook, won't have to change much. "Of course, there are going to be savvy marketers who skirt this and run (contests) under the radar," Alisa Leonard-Hansen said.

It really goes without saying the obvious: this is Facebook's service, and it can do what it wants with it. That doesn't mean marketers will stop grumbling. As one put it in a phone call to CNET, "This is another example of Facebook saying, 'Sorry, eat it, you've got no choice.'"

The next time you search Google for life expectancies or number of Internet users in the U.S., you'll find the specific figures plus an interactive chart letting you compare the U.S. with other countries.

Since Wednesday, Google has been tapping into data from the World Bank to provide key details and interactive charts on specific topics along with its own search results. The goal is to better help you search for and compare certain types of public data.

The World Bank is providing Google with facts and figures on 17 key indicators, including population growth, fertility rate, gross national product, and energy use.

Enter one of the 17 indicators into a Google search. You can phrase it as the specific indicator, for example, "population world," or type it as a natural question: "What is the population of the world?"

At the top of the search results, you'll find a thumbnail chart along with the latest statistics. (According to the World Bank, 72.4 percent of the U.S. population is on the Internet as of 2008.) Click on the chart or accompanying link, and up pops a larger interactive graph where you can visually compare the U.S. with other countries by clicking on their check boxes.

(Credit: Google)

You can embed the chart's HTML in your own blog or Web page and opt for the data to be updated automatically anytime the World Bank's information changes. Finally, a link for more info brings you directly to the World Bank's Web site where you can dig further into the results of your search.

This latest partnership with World Bank is part of Google's effort to offer data beyond that which it can grab from your average Web page. Back in April, the search giant started integrating stats and charts from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But the World Bank is the first source to provide global data for Google. The World Bank's figures come from its World Development Indicators (WDI), a collection of data derived from its own research and that of 30 other sources. The global data includes statistics on social, financial, and environmental areas encompassing more than 100 different countries.

Apple quietly launched a new preview service this week that makes it easier for users to view its iTunes music library from the browser.

Dubbed iTunes Preview, the new feature allows visitors to view iTunes content from their browser without being forced to launch iTunes. Previously, when a Web user received an iTunes link, they needed to open iTunes to view its content.

As part of the launch, Apple has updated links in iTunes to redirect to iTunes Preview. When a user copies a link in the software and pastes it into the browser, they will be brought to the song's individual listing on Apple's Web site. The feature is especially handy for those who don't use iTunes, since they can now view an individual song without being forced to download the software.

Aside from individual music listings, iTunes Preview also allows users to sift through artists and albums based on genre. Each individual listing displays all the songs in an album, the album art associated with it, its cost, and other content typically found in the iTunes store. The page also includes a link to the iTunes store in case the viewer wants to buy it. That said, there aren't any song previews in iTunes Preview; users will still need to go to iTunes to hear them.

iTunes Preview in action.

(Credit: Screenshot by Don Reisinger/CNET)

For now, iTunes Preview features music. There's no telling if Apple will add more content over time. If you want to check it out, copy an iTunes link from within the software and paste it into your browser.

(Via AppleInsider)

Here's the story. Or at least most of it.

Some 19 years ago, a man in Germany, together with his half brother, reportedly murdered an actor named Walter Sedlmayr. The man was convicted and served 15 years in jail.

Now he is free. And, according to Wired, he has exercised that freedom by instructing lawyers, the elegantly named firm of Stopp and Stopp, to sue Wikipedia.

The lawsuit claims that German privacy law, designed to help criminals re-integrate into society, prevents the man being named in association with Walter Sedlmayr's murder.

Wired quotes Jennifer Granick from the Electronic Frontier Foundation as saying that the lawyers are not only demanding that publications change whatever they write now, but that online archives must endure revision, too.

In writing to Wikipedia, the lawyers offered a very interesting approach: "As your article deals with a local German public figure (such as the actor Walter Sedlmayr), we expect you are aware that you have to comply with applicable German law."

Well, gosh, perhaps not everyone realizes when they mention, say, Boris Becker or that interesting actress who was in the first of the Bourne movies, that one is subject to German law when one does so.

Geek.com quotes the Electronic Frontier Foundation as adding: "At stake is the integrity of history itself. If all publications have to abide by the censorship laws of any and every jurisdiction just because they are accessible over the global Internet, then we will not be able to believe what we read, whether about Falun Gong (censored by China), the Thai king (censored under lèse majesté) or German murders."

(Credit: CC Schoschie/Flickr)

You might be wondering why I have not mentioned this German murderer's name. You see, as I write, I am reminded that the world seems to revel in the persona of murderers. In some slightly twisted way, they become figures of fascination.

I have a strange suspicion that the more the name of Walter Sedlmayr's murderer is mentioned, the more famous he will become. And the more famous he will become, the more money he might be able to make from the fame he claims not to desire.

So I am conducting a fame-reduction experiment. Moreover, I know that everyone who chooses to discover his name can do so in a myriad of ways.

I wonder how many people tried to access information about this man who murdered the German actor Walter Sedlmayr and how many people have done so in recent days.

I also wonder how Wikipedia will choose to respond to this interesting and rather revisionist-minded lawsuit. At the time of writing, the full names of both murderers are still there in the Wikipedia entry for Walter Sedlmayr.

However, the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard has a spirited discussion about all aspects of the case.

The solution proposed by a poster called Zara 1709 on the noticeboard is to "remove the full name from the article and the article talk page, but leave in the edit history of the article and the talk page. We would even have some sources that mention the full names in the reference, simply because they provide other, relevant information, too."

The precedent for this is the so-called Star Wars kid case, in which a 14-year-old Canadian boy waved around a golf-ball retriever like a lightsaber and then endured painful taunts, leading to an equally painful lawsuit.

Zara1709 noted that: "It is quite important to point out that, on Wikipedia, regard for people's privacy applies to criminals and former criminals, too."

However, another poster, Baseball Bugs, dissented: "There is no justification whatsoever for censoring the names of the killers. The notability argument is bogus, there is no privacy or BLP issue, and the 'doing harm' argument is crystal-ball and thus is irrelevant. And some anonymous German judge has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia."

In reading all this, I am left with the words that were often drubbed into me by teachers: "History is written by the winners."

So if this German request succeeds, might some consider that the winner is Wolfgang Wehrle, the man who, with his half brother Manfred Lauber, murdered Walter Sedlmayr 19 years ago? Dash it, I couldn't help myself. I hope I'm not causing undue work for some future editor.

Customers of Verizon Communications who pirate music files may soon receive an unwelcome letter from the company.

Verizon, the second-largest phone company in the United States, is expected to begin issuing "copyright notices" on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America to those accused of illegally downloading songs from the Web, according to sources with knowledge of the agreement.

The sources, who asked for anonymity, said Verizon's letter campaign is part of a test, which is expected to begin on Thursday. Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman, confirmed the existence of the test but declined further comment.

The move is significant for the music industry because among Internet service providers, Verizon has typically been among the most reluctant to intervene in copyright cases on behalf of entertainment companies.

"We recognize the importance of copyright and the need to enforce those copyrights," a Verizon spokesman said in a statement to CNET. "Without that enforcement, intellectual property won't be generated at all. At the same time, it's important for our customers to be assured that they won't have their privacy rights trampled."

The letter the RIAA will send to Verizon, and will likely be forwarded to customers, is similar to those issued in the past by other ISPs, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Cox Communications. The RIAA's letter has typically notified customers that they have been accused of illegally sharing songs and informed them that such activity is illegal.

In the letter, the user is advised to delete the content they distribute. It's important to note that not included in the letter are threats of service termination or interruptions, or any talk of a "graduated response." That's the term the RIAA uses to describe a deterrent program whereby an ISP gradually ratchets up penalties or warnings to suspected file sharers.

Last December, the RIAA announced that it would no longer seek to file new lawsuits against individuals accused of illegal file sharing. Instead, the trade group representing the four largest music labels would try to convince ISPs to adopt a graduated-response program. While some companies, such as Cox, have said they will terminate service for chronic copyright violators, most ISPs have shied away from suggesting service termination.

More importantly, in the 11 months since the RIAA dropped the filing of lawsuits on a widespread basis, not a single ISP has acknowledged a formal agreement with the RIAA.

As for Verizon, it appears that the company is expanding the antipiracy relationships it has with the entertainment sector. In past years, as many of its competitors began to lock arms with entertainment companies, Verizon appeared to hold back. Verizon fought the RIAA when the group went to court to force the ISP to turn over the name of an alleged copyright violator.

Verizon also opposed antipiracy legislation important to the film and music sectors.

Verizon's attitude toward antipiracy seemed to change in 2005, when the company quietly agreed to forward notices to suspected illegal file sharers on behalf of Disney. In exchange, Verizon received the rights to transmit 12 of Disney's TV channels over its broadband network.

Several other ISPs have recently begun forwarding copyright notices on behalf of the film studios, according to the sources who spoke to CNET. It's not yet clear which other ISPs are involved.

Corporations can be heinous places. All day, people wander around, playing politics like so many Lindsay Lohans in "Mean Girls."

So today, one wonders just what machinations are being endured by Simon Aldous, the Microsoft Partner Group manager who was Wednesday quoted by PCR as suggesting that Windows 7 was rather inspired by the simplicity of the Mac OS. Indeed, Aldous declared that Microsoft's new operating system was designed to "create a Mac look."

In what appears to be a somewhat hurriedly written post on the Windows Team blog titled, "How we really designed the look and feel of Windows 7," Microsoft showed that perhaps some of its underwear is currently a little twisted.

The post read: "An inaccurate quote has been floating around the Internet today about the design origins of Windows 7 and whether its look and feel was 'borrowed' from Mac OS X."

This would suggest that Aldous was, in fact, misquoted.

However, the post, written by Brandon LeBlanc, continued, "Unfortunately, this came from a Microsoft employee who was not involved in any aspect of designing Windows 7. I hate to say this about one of our own, but his comments were inaccurate and uninformed."

"I'm Steve Jobs, and Windows 7 was my idea?"

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)

Some would therefore now conclude that he was quoted accurately, but he didn't quite get his facts right. This is entirely possible, though one might wonder why he would have made comments with a ring of such endearing honesty.

However, perhaps the most interesting aspect of this Windows Team post is a comment left by someone with the handle "i-dont-do-tat".

This commenter wrote: "I know Simon Aldous, having worked in the same U.K. subsidiary as him for a few years. He's a good guy who, for me, is telling it like it is. He's paying testament to the common view that a Mac is cool and a great template to copy."

As many in the world of business will tell you, copying happens all the time. The competition is scrutinized religiously, and the best articles of faith are taken and sometimes even improved. This happens in every product category.

The "i-dont-do-tat" poster concluded that perhaps honesty might not be such a bad thing: "Denying this to your customers just makes you look stupid because the very look and feel of Windows 7 is desperately trying to look like a Mac OS--just admit it."

Oh, of course one mightn't expect honesty in the mass-market arena. It is a very dangerous place in which to say anything at all. Equally, though, in a tech world interview, perhaps a little nod toward the opposition is not such a bad thing. It might even lull it into a little complacent smugness.

One can only hope that Simon Aldous had a good breakfast Thursday and that he hasn't endured any untoward communications. Unless it's a job offer from Apple, of course, which he should accept only if the company gives him a better deal and appears to come from nicer people.

That's how the corporate world works, you see. Like high school, it's all temporary, so you have to make the most of it while you can.

Over the past few weeks, we've heard more and more about 2012 when, according to some, the world will end. Responding to all that talk with a healthy dose of skepticism, scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have launched a Web page to dispel the myths surrounding the momentous occasion.

On an FAQ page called, "2012: Beginning of the End or Why the World Won't End?" NASA wrote that much like the Y2K scare a decade ago, the end of the world won't come in 2012.

"Impressive movie special effects aside, December 21, 2012, won't be the end of the world as we know," NASA scientists wrote on its 2012 page. "It will, however, be another winter solstice."

According to NASA scientists, "nothing bad will happen to the Earth in 2012." The scientists wrote on the page that "our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012."

But it's further down on the page where the scientists bring out the big guns. They said although the myth surrounding 2012 contends planets will align and crash into Earth, "there are no planetary alignments in the next few decades, Earth will not cross the galactic plane in 2012, and even if these alignments were to occur, their effects on the Earth would be negligible. Each December the Earth and sun align with the approximate center of the Milky Way galaxy but that is an annual event of no consequence."

In the end, it was a simple comment from NASA senior research scientist Don Yeomans that might sum up the agency's feelings on 2012: "There apparently is a great deal of interest in celestial bodies, and their locations and trajectories at the end of the calendar year 2012. Now, I for one love a good book or movie as much as the next guy. But the stuff flying around through cyberspace, TV, and the movies is not based on science."