Judge Rules Against Google Books Settlement

5 Comments

A federal judge has ruled against Google (NSDQ: GOOG) in its long-standing attempt to expand a plan to scan and then distribute millions of books online. Google was sued by the Authors’ Guild and the Association of American Publishers back in 2004, with the writers’ groups saying that the company’s Google Books site broke copyright laws. The two sides settled their dispute in 2008, but revised that initial settlement in fall 2009 in response to objections from the Justice Department and competitors, who claimed that the initial settlement gave Google too much control over the electronic distribution of in-copyright, out-of-print books.

In an opinion issued today, U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin said the new settlement remained too favorable to Google. “The [settlement] 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,” Chin wrote.

Chin suggested that Google and the publishers could solve many of the problems with the settlement by changing from a system where authors must “opt out” to keep their content out of Google Books, to a system where they would “opt in.” Now Google and the publishers will have to decide whether to revise the settlement and re-submit it to Chin, or appeal Chin’s decision to a higher court.

Parts of the opinion suggest that Chin is bothered that Google kicked off Google Books without asking permission from authors first. If it wasn’t for the settlement, Google would have “no colorable defense” in a copyright lawsuit, Chin writes, yet the proposed settlement would have granted Google “control over the digital commercialization of millions of books, including orphan books and other unclaimed works. And it would do so even though Google engaged in wholesale, blatant copying, without first obtaining copyight permissions.”

About 500 comments were submitted to Chin regarding the settlement, with “the vast majority” objecting, Chin noted. Objectors included two major Google competitors, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) and Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN), who complained that the settlement would violate existing copyright law. The class included all U.S. authors with a valid book copyright, but about 6,800 class members opted out, choosing to preserve their rights to negotiate with Google-or sue Google-as individuals.

In the decision, Chin quotes Thomas Rubin, a Microsoft lawyer, who told the court that Google bypassed the “painstaking” and “costly” process of getting permission to scan books. “Google … took a shortcut by copying anything and everything regardless of copyright status,” Rubin stated.

And fundamentally, Chin writes, some of the issues addressed in the settlement-such as creating a marketplace for “orphan works” for situations where copyright owners can’t be found-should be the purview of Congress, not courts.

The settlement would have set up a revenue split between authors and Google in which 70 percent of the revenue from Google Books would have gone to authors and publishers.

In a statement, Google tells us, “This is clearly disappointing, but we’ll review the Court’s decision and consider our options. Like many others, we believe this agreement has the potential to open-up access to millions of books that are currently hard to find in the US today. Regardless of the outcome, we’ll continue to work to make more of the world’s books discoverable online through Google Books and Google eBooks.”

var docstoc_docid=”74454040″;var docstoc_title=”The Authors Guild et al. v. Google [Books Ruling]”;var docstoc_urltitle=”The Authors Guild et al. v. Google [Books Ruling]”;The Authors Guild et al. v. Google [Books Ruling]

5 Comments

Bonnielad

I live in the UK and am sick of waiting for Google Books to launch its e-book purchase service here. They have been promising to launch it in the UK for years and I’m still waiting. It’s the reason I still haven’t bought a Kindle because I don’t want to be tied to one device. Why only launch it in the US last December ? Terrible, untrustworthy company.

Stew Kelly

I’m glad the Judge made this ruling and I hope the higher courts back him up. Google has violated their axiom “Do no Evil” many times now as their power and presence on the Internet has grown.

Their tentacles are in everything and they use their near monopoly power to quash any viable competition if they can not outright buy them.

Scanning books so people can access them for free seems innocuous now, but may turn out to be costly in the future. No one seems to have that ability anymore to see that one entity controlling access and the type of information people can access is dangerous.

Google is not our friend and is not operating in our best interests, it is looking out for only Google… and people need to wake up to that fact!

Truth

Article: In his decision, Chin wrote, “While the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many, the ASA would simply go too far.” But he didn’t stop there.

“Although I am persuaded that the parties are seeking in good faith to use this class action to create an effective and beneficial marketplace for digital books, I am troubled in several respects,” Chin wrote. He brought up several key issues that seemed to point a way toward potential resolution of the agreement, including moving the issue of orphan works and international copyright issues to Congress, privacy concerns and inverting the structure of the ASA so authors interested in participating could opt in, rather than being included by default.

For out-of print books, this could be a good plan for exposure to the world. However, I’m with the judge in his caution. Copyright is held by the author unless granted to another. Are we to believe that the serious issues cited by the judge were fully explored by Google and those claiming to represent authors all over the globe? Authors should have the right to opt their individual works in. Consumers may not care about creative license – especially when a work is available on the web. But the world will lose new artistic creations when authors, artists, illustrators, song writers, music artists, and other creators lose the solid protections of copyright. Go research the music industry on this one. You’ll likely get an earful and it won’t be the tune you wanted.

Shaun

It will be interesting to see, once the dust clears, which of those 6800 who sat out of the settlement actually decide to sue. I wonder how many of them were famous authors who had a lot to lose, how many were people who didn’t quite understand what the settlement was, and how many just want to ideologically stick it to Google once they have standing to sue.

Comments are closed.