Lessons for journalism from the Google Books decision, across Europe and here in the US

Nieman: "On Tuesday, US Judge Denny Chin rejected a settlement agreement between Google, the Association of American Publishers, and the Authors Guild for a 2005 lawsuit over the search giant’s full-text scanning and displays of copyrighted books. While Judge Chin’s decision makes the precise future of Google Books unclear for now, the issues it raises are already being felt by journalists, newspapers, and media creators of all stripes who are currently grappling with Google abroad. ... "

The rejected Google e-books settlement: What it means and what comes next

LA Times:

More than a year after giving it preliminary approval, U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin on Tuesday rejected the Google Books Amendment Settlement Agreement, yet left a door open for the parties to try for a revision. 'The motion for final approval of the ASA is denied, without prejudice to renewal in the event the parties negotiate a revised settlement agreement,' he wrote.

What's more, in his decision, Chin detailed several possible revisions, providing a roadmap for the parties if they intend to attempt to revise the settlement.

Will they? It looks like they may try. ...

"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. ...

Judge Rules Against Google Books Settlement

Good decision: Agreement needs an opt-in rather than opt-out in order to fully protect copyrights. That would also help get around the inappropriate fact of a publishers' org and the Authors Guild presuming to have authority to negotiate for all authors of out-of-print works, which they don't. Puts power back into the hands of true copyright holders. paidContent: "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. ... "

Turow & Authors Guild Not Just Out of Touch on the Subject of eBook Pricing, but also ...

on DRM, "piracy," copyright and other things that go bump in the night. Last month, Mike Masnick @ Techdirt: " ... as the Authors Guild continues to have out-of-touch, fact-challenged people lead it, it's only going to serve to drive younger authors away from the Guild. Smart authors today recognize the maxim that obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy, and many have come to figure out that piracy is nothing to fear if you have a smart business model. If Turow and the Authors Guild really wanted to help authors, they'd focus on helping them understand new business models, rather than supporting ever more draconian laws that will do nothing to help and plenty to hurt."

Brussels Wants 7-Year Limit on Works Digitized by Google

James Kanter, NY Times: "Companies like Google that digitize artworks and books from public bodies should allow other companies and institutions to commercialize those materials after seven years, three experts advising the European Commission said Monday. ... "

Cory Doctorow on the Purpose of Copyright

via Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish: "In my world, copyright’s purpose is to encourage the widest participation in culture that we can manage – that is, it should be a system that encourages the most diverse set of creators, creating the most diverse set of works, to reach the most diverse audiences as is practical ..."

Excellent Interview/Joi Ito of Creative Commons

The Observer: "Joi Ito, 44, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist with a particular interest in the world wide web, was an early investor in Twitter, Technorati, Flickr and Last.fm. He grew up in Japan and the US; he once owned a nightclub in Tokyo and worked as a DJ in Chicago. Time magazine hailed him as a member of the 'cyber-elite' in 1997 and two years ago Businessweek named him 'one of the 25 most influential people on the web'. Ito has a special interest in issues of copyright in the digital sphere and is CEO of the organization Creative Commons. ... "

Copyright, Ebooks and the Unpredictable Future

Insightful essay from Emily Williams in Digital Book World: "Ebook publishers have unsurprisingly been in the vanguard of offering new terms to authors, often as a way of competing against the big established print houses. RosettaBooks, under agent Arthur Klebanoff, and the new Diversion Books, established by agent Scott Waxman, both offer 3-5 year contracts based on the proven principle that the future is hard to predict and flexibility for authors is key. Richard Nash, the former publisher of print indie Soft Skull who is now setting up Cursor, a new publisher proposing an innovative crowd-sourced digital+print model, has been more vocal about overturning the copyright status quo. In a manifesto on his blog Nash laid out his own version of the change principle: 'The publishing industry is in a state of turmoil. New sales channels are arising, new formats, new terms of sale. Authors deserve the chance to renegotiate as the industry evolves.' Nash thus offers Cursor authors 3-year renewable contracts, in return for 'a fairly broad basket of rights in the license…in audio, in English-language outside the US, in magazine republication, in translation.'"

Personal Digitization of Books Catching on Across Japan

Home-brew digital editions scanned from print editions. Hmmm. The Mainichi Daily News: "Personal digitization of books is catching on in Japan as people look to move their book collections to portable devices. Referred to in Japan's Internet community as 'jisui,' (literally 'cooking one's own meals'), the process involves feeding pages of a book through a scanner one by one to turn a work into digital form. ..." Copyright issues, certainly. Unauthorized copying/duplication of text. Serious problem for traditional print publishers still emphasizing that medium; not so for those focusing on e-publishing and making books readily available in that format. From the consumer's point of view: why do a crummy scan of a high-priced paper book when a cheaper, clean e-edition is available. Will be interesting to watch what happens with backlists along this line.