GBS

Google Books Settlement Rejected

March 22, 2011 By Mark Leave a Comment

This is extremely good news:

A New York federal judge has overturned a Nov. 2009 agreement on whether or not Google can digitize millions of books as part of its Google Books initiative.

My position has always been that the Google Books Settlement was a direct violation of copyright law and of the rights of copyright holders. Judge Denny Chin clearly agreed:

Indeed, the ASA would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case.”

I’ll have more to say about this after I digest the ruling. Previous commentary on the issue here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Update: It’s reassuring to see that Google’s blatant larceny is being exposed and denied in this case (p. 35).

Second, it is incongruous with the purpose of the copyright laws to place the onus on copyright owners to come forward to protect their rights when Google copied their works without first seeking their permission.

If Google and the Author’s Guild could conspire to circumvent third-party copyrights, and copyright law itself, there would be no end to the abuses unleashed on authors — all at a time when authors of all stripes need copyright protection more than ever.

Independent authorship is premised on inviolate copyright law. This ruling and rebuke could not be more welcome.

— Mark Barrett

GBS Copyright Hijacking Attempt #2

February 4, 2010 By Mark Leave a Comment

Yes, I’m against the (re)proposed Google Books Settlement with the Authors Guild. Which is why this seems like a bit of good news:

In another blow to Google’s plan to create a giant digital library and bookstore, the Justice Department on Thursday said that a class-action settlement between the company and groups representing authors and publishers had significant legal problems, even after recent revisions.

…

The department also indicated that the revised agreement, like its predecessor, appeared to run afoul of authors’ copyrights and was too broad in scope.

I say “a bit” because one never knows how these things are being staged. My hope is that the Justice Department is sincere in its objections, and not just covering its ass.

— Mark Barrett

Judgment

January 8, 2010 By Mark 2 Comments

Does this remind you of anything?

The settlement agreement was reached Monday night. The lawyers sent a letter to the court at 12:23 a.m. Tuesday announcing a settlement. But in the morning, [Judge] Alsup was less than thrilled with the parties’ stipulation as part of the agreement that the court had held the trademark valid.

Growing stern, Alsup told the lawyers, “I will not let you walk out of this courthouse” with a settlement stating that “a judgment was entered” in favor of Autodesk’s mark. Stern and Jacobs scrambled out of the courtroom, and after back-and-forths between clients and lawyers alike, came back with a new agreement. The final draft said that the parties agreed that DWG is a valid trademark (pdf), but emphasized twice that the court did not rule on the issue. The terms of the settlement were confidential aside from the brief stipulation.

Alsup is “being a good guardian of the law in not wanting to be a party to something that may be used beyond an agreement or concessions between parties,” said Neil Smith, an IP lawyer with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton who was not involved in the case. He said Alsup was wise to head off the danger of the settlement being “waved around as a finding of validity.”

What this reminded me of was the revised (and original) Google Books Settlement, where two parties — Google and the Authors Guild — are trying to reach agreement in a self-generated dispute that undermines copyright law. Not surprisingly, this settlement advantages both parties, while disadvantaging every copyright holder.

My hope, at a minimum, is that the judge overseeing the Google case will prohibit both parties from making claims about their compliance with copyright law if their settlement is approved. Ideally, however, the judge will void the settlement as being against existing law, just as a judge would void my legal agreement with you that we can break into a third person’s house and steal their furniture.

— Mark Barrett