DOJ: Google's book settlement needs rewrite
The U.S. Department of Justice late Friday urged the court overseeing Google's book search settlement with authors and publishers to reject the settlement in its current form, although it strongly hinted that the parties are flexible on certain provisions.
"As presently drafted, the Proposed Settlement does not meet the legal standards this Court must apply," the DOJ said in a 32-page filing (click for PDF) with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. "This Court should reject the Proposed Settlement in its current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it so as to comply with Rule 23 (a federal law governing class-action settlements) and the copyright and antitrust laws."
After Google was sued in 2005 for digitizing out-of-print yet copyright protected books by several groups representing authors and publishers, the parties settled out of court in October 2008. That deal granted Google sweeping rights to scan and display out-of-print books. Ever since the settlement was announced, opposition has mounted to what one University of California at Berkeley professor recently called "the largest copyright licensing deal in U.S. history." Opponents claim that Google and the plaintiffs overstepped their bounds in assigning the company the sole right to make digital copies of out-of-print books that are still protected by copyright law.
"The Proposed Settlement is one of the most far-reaching class action settlements of which the United States is aware; it should not be a surprise that the parties did not anticipate all of the difficult legal issues such an ambitious undertaking might raise," the DOJ wrote in its filing.
The DOJ has been looking into antitrust concerns stemming from the fact that Google and the nonprofit Books Rights Registry set up to handle payments to authors would have sole control over the pricing of institutional subscriptions to the digital library. But in its filing, it also raised questions about whether the settlement complies with Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure as well as copyright law in general. "In the view of the United States, each category of objection is serious in isolation, and, taken together, raise cause for concern."
Still, the DOJ noted that a digital library of books holds important benefits for society, a point that has been repeatedly raised by Google's supporters, who argue that it would improve access to knowledge. It would appear that the DOJ, however, would prefer Congress settle the thorny issues of copyright laws that apply to orphan works--books whose rightholders cannot be located but which can be scanned by Google under the agreement--rather than making policy through legal settlements.
"As a threshold matter, the central difficulty that the Proposed Settlement seeks to overcome - the inaccessibility of many works due to the lack of clarity about copyright ownership and copyright status - is a matter of public, not merely private, concern. A global disposition of the rights to millions of copyrighted works is typically the kind of policy change implemented through legislation, not through a private judicial settlement," the DOJ wrote.
Reaction to the DOJ's filing allowed parties from all sides of this issue to claim victory.
"The Department of Justice's filing recognizes the value the settlement can provide by unlocking access to millions of books in the U.S. We are considering the points raised by the Department and look forward to addressing them as the court proceedings continue," Google said Friday in a statement.
The Internet Archive, perhaps Google's most vocal opponent in this matter, was likewise pleased. "Despite Google's vigorous efforts to convince them otherwise, the Department of Justice recognizes that there are significant problems with terms of the proposed settlement, which is consistent with the concerns voiced with the Court by hundreds and hundreds of other parties," the Open Book Alliance said in a statement.
"This is a major agreement, and it is entirely appropriate for DOJ to look at a deal of this magnitude," said Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which has supported the settlement. "They are doing their job scrutinizing the competition aspects of this settlement."
And Consumer Watchdog, a strident opponent of the settlement, also found something to like in the DOJ's filing:
Consumer Watchdog supports digitization and digital libraries in a robust competitive market open to all organizations, both for-profit and non-profit, that offer fundamental privacy guarantees to users. But a single entity cannot be allowed to build a digital library based on a monopolistic advantage when its answer to serious questions from responsible critics boils down to: "Trust us. Our motto is 'Don't be evil.'"
Google will learn whether it has earned that trust from Judge Denny Chin on October 7 in New York. That is, unless the settlement is modified in the coming weeks, in which case we could be looking at several more weeks of debate.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
OKay !!! But the RULE and the LAW should be that ALL non-copyrighted or copyright-doubt work, should be totally UNFETTEREDLY and OPENLY be able to be accessed and transmited by any and all ... and should be able to be accessible very cleanly without sleazy tricks, etc., put in their way - absolutely free of charge - and be able to RSS via any website or other sites trying to reconvey the digitized works.
It should be accessible for MASHING by any site or be able to be accessed by any individual TOTALLY FREE OF CHARGE OR MEMBERSHIPS, etc.
That would be really socially responsible access to all scaning rights that SOCIETY can afford to GRANT to Google ... and ANYONE ELSE that wants to to the same or BETTER still can be derived from Googles scan on-demand or seamlessly imediately on scanning taking place!!!
That is society's grace on Google if they want to scan for the society ... trully. However the same rights should be allowed to others in case Google does fuzzy scans for the general free access and does good scans for itself ... just being careful! ALL safeguards should be in place to keep Google HONEST and better still they can not discriminate in anyway on any material or work if such a RIGHT is granted.
Well PEOPLE !!! Jump in else this will be stolen right from under your noses! For eternity !!!
Thanks ... CB
Who knew?
if you satisfy the other party thats suing you the matter is oviously resolved.
The scope of this initiative is mind-boggling. Imagine everyone on the planet having access to all of mankind's knowledge, with the click of a mouse.
This definitely is a disgusting, misguided initiative on Google's part. That's why the Department of Justice is involved. Google is so crazed on money and power they think they can pirate the intellectual property of others, without getting prior written permission, just to fulfill their Utopian wet dreams.
I have said it before... Brin, Page and the Google CEO should be indicted on Federal RICO charges, or Anti-Trust charges, and do hard time in a Federal Prison for this attempt at a massive daylight theft of intellectual property belonging to others. Self-serving Google has no right set the rules about copyright by their own policies or by arrangements with a bogus group like the Books Rights Registry.
You are dead wrong. Google reached an agreement with the authors involved that would include creating exposure and financial opportunity for authors who's works are now rarely seen. It is THIRD PARTIES who object to the settlement -- not the people who hold rights to the works involved, but unrelated people who object. Why shouldn't Google have control of their digital reproductions? If someone else wanted to make the investment, they could -- I haven't seen anything suggesting that Google's rights to scan under the settlement are exclusive.
"I haven't seen anything suggesting that Google's rights to scan under the settlement are exclusive"
Maybe you should reread the article: "Opponents claim that Google and the plaintiffs overstepped their bounds in assigning the company the sole right to make digital copies of out-of-print books that are still protected by copyright law." Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? A copyright owner can do whatever they want with their copyright, including restricting reproduction to as few entities as they choose. Where the copyright holder is unknown, how can anyone else have the right to restrict use to a single entity? If any form of access is allowed, then the only reasonable course is to allow the same access to anyone, and establish a fair method of compensating the copyright holder if they can be located.
Wow, the government got something right! This has been my objection to the settlement, that a class action suit could be used by the defendants to alter the rights granted by US law, without the agreement of the rightsholders. This case has been argued mostly over emotional issues - people hate, love, fear, or respect google, and they think this is going to be bad for competition or writers, but those fears and emotions shouldn't be a factor in the process of making this settlement binding. The settlement effectively creates a new law, and that shouldn't be allowed to come out of a lawsuit where the government is not the defendant.
Since it would take years or millions of dollars in bribes, I mean campaign contributions, to resolve this issue via legislation, the best solution for google would be to remove any and all exclusivity, and to let copyright owners opt out of this agreement at any time. Then effectively google would be in the position that people who post videos on you-tube are in - if google sells a copyrighted book and the copyright owner objects, they have to stop selling it. The copyright owner has the right to make deals with any other retailer to sell the book, and since google doesn't own the rights to the scanned works, the owner now has a digital copy he/she/it can sell to others. If they sell an orphaned book, and nobody objects, then no sound is made in the forest and who cares?
Google opened up a vast new universe for the reader. No matter how this turns out (and 'flexibility' is indicated) it will be to our benefit.
We win!
- by Garken September 22, 2009 7:29 AM PDT
- One big step for Google towards taking over the world !
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)