decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

The Google Books Settlement Culture Clash, and What About Fair Use? - Updated
Monday, February 01 2010 @ 01:06 AM EST

Thursday was the deadline to file objections to the amended Google Books Project settlement agreement, and many have done so, Amazon, the Open Book Alliance (which represents Amazon, Microsoft and the Internet Archive), the usual competitors. Here's The Public Index, which has the filings, including the latest objections filed and a list of those who have requested to speak at the Fairness Hearing on February 18.

Some Authors Guild authors, like Garrison Keillor and Scott Turow are satisfied now, as are the families of John Steinbeck and Woody Guthrie, while others are not happy, and in fact, it's up to each one to decide. Except lawyers are in this, so there are now legal dustups. One author, Ursula Le Guin, has gotten hundreds of authors to sign a petition [PDF] asking the judge to exempt the US from the agreement. That would kill it, of course, but legal filings don't always tell you what a case is really all about. You may have noticed that in the SCO litigations.

The Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO), a copyright society in India is suing Google over its book scanning. They filed in New York, alleging copyright violations for scanning books without notifying the authors first. Larry Lessig has written the most thoughtful and on-point critique, and he hates aspects of it, specifically what is happening to fair use and to culture if you have to get permission now for use that was in the past not permissions-based, not that he blames Google as much as copyright law and the super-control technology now provides authors. It's well worth reading. The fair use issue was what I was unhappy about when the first version of the settlement was announced, if you recall. And I still feel the same way. But here's who I really blame: publishers. I see it as comparable to Apple trying to set up iTunes and having to deal with the music industry. Remember all that?

Let me show you something that to me is like a metaphor for what is going on. I went to Google, of course, to try to find out what was happening with the latest filings in the litigation, and I found a link that mentioned the Google objections, and it was a link to Publisher's Marketplace. So, OK. I figured I'd like to hear what publishers are saying, to give them a chance to persuade me. Here's what you see when you click on the link:

Miss the point of the Internet much? I mean, really. Why would I pay to find out what Publisher's Marketplace thinks of the Google Books Settlement? And if they want to keep it a secret for only their members, why is it on Google News blogs section? If you want a private club, send out a newsletter or block Google so the rest of us don't get misled. But if they want me to join so I can read, shouldn't they at least give me a taste of the article, so I can decide based on something other than just a title?

I'm not saying the settlement is perfect as is, and heaven only knows Lessig is persuasive. But the fundamental unmovable rock is found in that screenshot. It's a screenshot I'd like to caption: Google Books Culture Clash. I'm guessing it's generational to some extent as well. It says it all.

If you are used to selling words, it may be hard to face up to the reality that not all your words are words people will pay for. I think authors are more used to that thought than publishers, because publishers are more accustomed to making money. It's up to the customer to decide what he or she is willing to pay to read. But it's up to the publisher or author to be realistic about how it makes its offers. And that's why the books out-of-print aspect of the settlement agreement seems like a win for the authors, in that they are currently getting absolutely nothing from anyone and are unlikely to ever do so. I can see why a best selling author might wish to opt out, but out-of-print authors? Why not let the world see if they like your work? If they do, you'll surely get more gigs, and if not, what have you lost? Nothing from nothing is nothing. And it's a shot at a kind of immortality.

You might find interesting in this context a letter from the Authors Guide to its members that it has on its website. It's about a recent statement from Random House, telling its authors that they gave up electronic rights when they signed their contracts years ago. Not so fast, says the Authors Guild, and note who *they* are afraid of, and no, it's not Google:

On the second page, Mr. Dohle gets to the point. After noting that most of Random House's backlist titles grant the publisher electronic book rights (we agree, since most backlist titles are from the past ten years, a period in which authors have generally licensed electronic rights in tandem with their print rights), he writes that "there have been some misunderstandings concerning ebook rights in older backlist titles." He then proceeds to argue that older contracts granting rights to publish "in book form" or "in all editions" grant electronic rights to Random House.

The misunderstandings reside entirely with Random House. Random House quite famously changed its standard contract to include e-book rights in 1994. (We remember it well -- Random House tried to secure these rights for royalties of 5% of net proceeds, a pittance. We called it a "Land Grab on the Electronic Frontier" in our press release headline.) Random House felt the need to change its contract, quite plainly, because its authors did not grant those rights to it under Random House's standard contracts prior to 1994.

A fundamental principle of book contracts is that the grant of rights is limited. Publishers acquire only the rights that they bargain for; authors retain rights they have not expressly granted to publishers. E-book rights, under older book contracts, were retained by the authors....

We are sympathetic with the difficult position the publishing industry is in at the moment. The recession has been tough on book publishing, as it has been on many industries. And everyone with knowledge of the dynamics of the industry properly fears that Amazon's dominance of the online markets for traditional and especially e-books will give it a chokehold on industry profits. Difficult times, however, do not justify this attempt at a retroactive rights grab.

See that? Amazon is who they fear. There was a court case about electronic rights, the letter points out, and you can read it online, Random House v. Rosetta Books [PDF]. And here's the Authors Guild page on the Google Books settlement, where you can find many of the legal filings. In short, while I'm not crazy about what happens to fair use in this digital world, and I seriously think they should incorporate wording about that topic in the settlement, the real problem Google is dealing with isn't that. I think the Random House move makes clear that publishers aren't fighting for authors, any more than the RIAA fights for musicians. It's about the bottom line in old-fashioned business models that are now struggling to stay the way they used to be.

Exhibit A: Publishing Law Rights Center has an article all about the Rosetta Books case, which is fine, but there's no link to the decision itself. See what I mean? It's not hard to find the opinion online, thanks to Google, ironically enough, but they just didn't think of it, I guess. Because in the print world, that would not be what you would do. But online, it's just basic. It's old ways bumping into a brave new world, and it's painful for them. They don't know how to do it, and so they'd like the Internet to cut it out and stop being the way it is.

That's the dream of more than book publishers. Here's an exhibit from the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust case of a few years back, Exhibit 3590 [PDF]. It's a discussion in 1994 with Bill Gates and his executives about the Internet, and it includes an email from Nathan Myhrvold on how Microsoft could in time take over control of the Internet. Here's that part of it:

Ultimately people will solve the technical and policy issues with making the Internet capable of doing commerce -- i.e. intellectual property protection and metering, billing etc., but this is only in its earliest glimmer of comming into being. ...

When you start to assume lots of rich content and transaction services you start to act a lot more like the PC market - standards change slowly, ISV buy in is important, there is value to being a kingmaker funding major new work and evangelizing it etc. That is a role which we can play. Over time I expect to see the following trends to occur: The Internet up to this point has been the last bastion of grad students and public domain software written by academics. As a result it has also been the last bastion of platform independent software since these people wrote code for the Internet with a mindset shaped by the various random UNIX machines in academia, a high concentration of Macs, and then as an afterthought, Windows. Now that the masses are descending on the Internet they will do so with Windows machines. The 'center of gravity' for formats, protocols and so forth will shift toward Windows as the primary platform. The UNIX crowd can circle their wagons for a while and flame away in some forum called, but their time is past. 100,000,000 customers can't be wrong.

Front end software (editors, browsers) will become the key arbiter of formats. If people want to browse spreadsheets they will send Excel files. No bunch of grad students is going to write a public domain spreadsheet viewer that will compete effectively, especially if Excel makes sure that they support use as an Internet browser decently. There are still some formats that will revolve around things which are intrinsically tied to the net, but anything that relies on front end software for creation/display will be driven by that software....

The internet will tend to standardize any software product which depends on proprietary files....

This suggests that we do a lot to make our apps good citizens. This does NOT mean building a full Mosaic clone into each app -- Instead we have to focus on what we have to do to make both authoring and viewing easy....

What do we need to do to make OLE the preferred linking and embedding mechanism across Internet connections. There is a lot to do here and we should be working on it.

Content developers will try to remain platform neutral, tool neutral and format neutral, and for the most part they will fail. Once people start to compete they will increasingly become platform and tool specific if there is any advantage in doing so....

Getting new formats and protocols adopted is going to [be] no different in nature than getting them established in the PC industry. There is no strong central committee, and even if there was one now there is no reason to think it would survive any more than one would in the PC industry. Public domain software has never competed effectively with commercial software, and this will not change here.

Control freaks that they are, they thought they could control the Internet. Have they stopped trying?

Old-fashioned copyright owners want the Internet to cut it out and be about them feeding us content and we sit back and just consume what they send us. After we pay. And agree to DRM.

Of course, it's funny, what Myhrvold wrote, in that they totally missed the boat about the Internet, and about Linux, but that's a good thing. They probably could have killed Linux early on, had they tried. Their arrogance has cost them. It's too late now, hopefully, to just crush it, not that they haven't been trying. They'll have to buy community members to sell out and write their software to run on Windows instead of Linux now one by one, if they can find enough greedy types, and that takes longer even in Microsoft's best case scenario.

But what he wrote is also not so funny. Don't you see efforts to turn the Internet into something only the big corporations benefit from? Like another version of cable tv? Not all of us see entertainment as the most important thing in life. Cluebat for Hollywood. We like to *create* content and share it, not just consume yours. Like I say. It's a culture clash.

And just for the historical record, the software Myhrvold was so dismissive of isn't public domain. It's copyrighted work, but the authors chose to share its use freely with the world, and *that* is what made the Internet happen. Not that people who think in old-fashioned ways, like the publishing industry and Microsoft, ever get that.

Here's another exhibit with more details about Myhrvold's vision of the Internet, Exhibit 5705, and I hope you read the entire thing, but here are some relevant snips:

- Cross platform data only protocols like HTML are very important at the moment. I do not expect this to continue with the same degree of emphasis. Custom protocols, downloaded front end code and platform specific development are bound to occur. Some content (particularly that with low value) will continue in genetic, cross platform tools, but a lot of compelling things will start to dip into custom code and platform specific features. This trend has always occurred in similar situations in the past, when you get two competitors making a product, and you have some platforms that are more popular than others, then one of the competitors is going to succumb to the temptation to abandon cross platform approaches, limit themselves to the most popular platform, but be able to do things that can't be done in a cross platform manner.

- The world of the Internet is rapidly becoming Windows centric because Windows will be the most popular client operating system by a wide margin. This is a 180 degree shift from the historical traditions of the internet which happened to grow up in one of the few communities which is platform-diverse - namely academic computing....

Given this, our natural strategy is to try achieve a number of goals:

- Superset internet protocols and standards with our own value added extensions. As platform specific work is done on the internet, we want it to be done on our platform. As proprietary technology and protocols are used, we want them to be ours - in as many broad mainstream areas as is reasonably possible. We don't need to own every protocol in every area, but we want to be an important player. There certainly is a danger that Netscape, or another company, could establish enough APIs and proprietary protocol extensions that they would wind up owning the "Windows Internet platform". PaulMa is quite correct in comparing this situation to Novell, which sucessfully (sic) established a "sub-platform" (for a set of network services) within the context of our client operating system. This does not mean that Netscape needs to be a direct competitor - I am optimistic that we can have a positive relationship with them - but out of the many possible future directions for them and us, if we are not careful they will evolve toward being a direct competitor in this manner.

- The natural way for us to do this supersetting is using our current technological agenda in PC computing. This means using monickers, OLE objects, Forms3 forms and every other Windows technology that is applicable as part of the (sic) our extensions to the current Internet world. In addition we also have to look at developing some new things that have no equivalents in the PC world, such as security and billing, so it is not all about reworking existing stuff.

- We need to have technology at both ends of the system to make this work - i.e. both front end and server, and have them be very popular.


Given the current state of the internet, and given our size and resource level, we are going to bootstrap our internet service by leapfrogging the current front end technology and distributing our own front end. This is unusual, since most internet services just accept the constraints of the existing protocols and software. Given our size, and our software skill there is no reason to accept these constraints, and in fact every reason for us to break the mold by doing something really different for the bootstrap....

Initially we give away the front end, but over time I want to have features in the front end be a continued reason for people to pay us a subscription charge. The free aspects of the front end would be kept competitive, but once you get into content that uses the extended stuff it should be a lot more cool....

Everybody in this business is going to wind up trying to leverage three different sources of value:

- Software features (in front end and back end).

- Content and (particularly navigational content like index, directory, yellow pages, browsing)

- Service relationship (including basic access and other services).

...Another way to look at this is that we are going to prioritize pushing momentum in the service and content areas versus a pure software approach.
I hope the EU Commission is reading Groklaw at moments like this. The email is from 1995, but didn't they do what he suggested? I'm remembering the Microsoft extensions to HTML. I'm also thinking about OOXML. There's lots more in the exhibit about their browser plans, but are you thinking Silverlight? I am. Here's a snip from one last exhibit, Exhibit 3589 [PDF], an email thread with a memo shared with the top brass at Microsoft on how to get the Internet away from open standards bit by bit:
I recommend a recipe not unlike the one we've used with our TCP/IP efforts: embrace, extend, then innovate.

Phase I (Embrace): all participants need to establish a solid understanding of the infostructure and the community - determine the needs and the trends of the user base. Only then can we effectively enable Microsoft system products to be great Internet systems.

Phase II (Extend): establish relationships with the appropriate organizations and corporations with goals similar to ours. Offer well-integrated tools and services compatible with established and popular standards that have been developed in the Internet community.

Phase 3 (Innovate): move into a leadership role with new Internet standards as appropriate, enable standard off-the-shelf titles with Internet awareness. Change the rules: Windows becomes the next-generation Internet tool of the future.

Are you reading this Apache guys? Ubuntu Mono freaks? In the "Potential Risks" section on page 15:
Microsoft/Internet Culture Clash. - One of the biggest challenges facing Microsoft's success in the Internet community is acceptance and respect. Although we have an incredible amount of respect in the commercial software business, the Internet has been founded on public domain protocols and products which generally included source availability at no charge. It has been only recently that vendors have suggested profiting from the Internet by selling the browsing tools and technologies, and offering commercial services on the Internet itself. The information and software has been free for 15 years, we need to be careful to embrace the current technologies and community before we attempt to reshape it.
Put 'Open Source' everywhere in that snip where it says 'Internet' and you have the picture. They pretend to be with you, sharing goals, and then they win. If you are stupid enough to fall for the "let's be friends" part of their scheme.

Their concept of the Internet is that it's a strip mall. They want it to be *their* strip mall.

But, whatever their flaws, Google is at least thinking more broadly. Their concept includes the hope that knowledge will become available to people who currently have no access to it, people who in many cases can't afford to pay money for books. Don't you want people in Haiti to read?

No. Seriously. Think that over, publishers. They are not going to pay you under your current model anyway. They and millions of people in the world, including many in the United States this very day, can't. The bigger, more noble question then is, should we let them have access to at least part of the world's culture or not? That is, not to put it too starkly, the right question.

And I think authors like Ursula Le Guin need to answer that question, because it's not a question authors have ever faced before or had to think about. The Internet makes things possible that never happened before in the history of the world. So authors need to think about those possibilities, not just their personal needs and wants, and you can't escape the question by arguing that it's only natural to think about one's own interests. It is true. It is natural. But the creators of the Internet demonstrated that it's not the *only* way to think a matter through. Sometimes one has a chance to do something much bigger. Linus had choices too, you know. He could have patented Linux up the kazoo. He could have licensed it differently and gotten money every time you get a copy. Humans are not required to think only about personal gain. One can have larger dreams, dreams the Internet makes capable of fulfillment.

I wrote this article to highlight those possibilities, so they can think about this settlement from a different angle, not just dollars and cents. It's not just Google's interests or the authors' or the publishers' interests at stake. Please will you read Ah! Google Books! Ah! and The British Library - "The world's knowledge" DRM'd and for a price before you finally decide your position on the settlement? Thank you, if you do. I wrote them to explain to librarians and authors that there are folks who won't be at the Fairness Hearing but who have an interest in what happens here. Fair use and public libraries used to protect their interest. Now, in the digital world, who will protect them? The answer cannot be nobody will. Aside from the nobility aspect, fair use is part of copyright law in the US. You can't just paper it over. The US government will be filing a brief soon. Logically, it would be they who should protect that interest and fair use.

And could authors please think about this also: in the prior dead-tree books model, a lot of us went to book stores to sample your books, to decide if we liked them and wanted to buy them or not. Were we pirates? Barnes and Noble provided a section just for that. Coffee even. Did we have to pay to read your books that way? What exactly is the difference between that and Google Books? The difference is we could read the entire book at the bookstore if we wanted to devote the time, not just a snippet. Think about it. How will we know if we want to buy your work if we can't sample it?

Here's the Amended Settlement agreement from November, which the court preliminarily approved, and the FAQ. And if you want to opt out, here you go, but don't do it if you did it already. If you want to attend the Fairness hearing on February 18, here's the info on how to do that.

Update: FSF has filed objections, and the press release is actually quite interesting. It's refreshing, in that they say they already gave Google permission to display works without paying them anything, and authors who choose to do that should not have to get into the whole Google Books Project maze. They objected in that way to the first agreement, Google altered the language, but it doesn't yet address sufficiently the original objection:

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) filed another objection in court to the proposed amended Google Book Search settlement (*The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc.*). The objection notes that proposed amendments which discuss works under free licenses unfairly burden their authors with ensuring license compliance, and urges the court to reject the proposed settlement unless it incorporates terms that better address the needs of authors using free licenses like the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

The GFDL is a copyright license that authors use for their works when they believe others should have the freedom to share and improve those works. It was designed primarily for use with technical documentation, but has been used for many different kinds of written works -- from print biographies to Wikipedia articles. Whereas copyright is normally used to prohibit others from distributing works, the GFDL encourages sharing, with the requirement that any such redistribution must also be under its pro-sharing terms.

But under the proposed amended settlement, Google would generally have permission to display and distribute these works without abiding by the requirements to pass the freedoms guaranteed under the GFDL on to Google Books readers. Authors who wanted to use the GFDL or another free license would be required to designate that license in a Registry -- and the Registry would determine which licenses could and could not be chosen.

"As soon as we saw this proposed amendment, we realized that it wasn't good enough," said Brett Smith, license compliance engineer at the FSF. "The GFDL and other free licenses, like the Creative Commons Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses, already grant Google permission to display and distribute covered works through the Google Book Search database. Google doesn't need permission to distribute these books under separate terms, and authors shouldn't have to ask Google to come into compliance."

The objection states, "The proposed terms... [place] an unfair burden on Rightsholders. Rather than requiring Google to respect the terms of such Free licenses, Rightsholders are responsible for notifying the Registry that the work should be made available under those terms. The FSF sees no justifiable reason to shift these administrative costs to the Rightsholders. Works distributed under Free licenses typically indicate the license terms within the work itself, so authors have already made their choice clearly known. Google should be able to use this information to classify and publish these works appropriately...."

The full text of the objection is available here. The full text of the GFDL is at here.

Like I say, it's refreshing that there is someone out there who isn't trying to get some of Google's money. And as for the issue, can't Google just come up with an algorithm that notices the GFDL or the various Creative Commons licenses? It's not asking them to beam them up to outer space or anything really hard. Maybe, despite my joke, it can't yet be done, but surely there has to be a way eventually, and if they could figure that out, it'd remove the objection and the need for notification for either side. The notice is the license.


The Google Books Settlement Culture Clash, and What About Fair Use? - Updated | 269 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 01:20 PM EST

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 01:21 PM EST

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 01:22 PM EST

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Google Books Settlement Culture Clash, and What About Fair Use?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 01:22 PM EST

"Not all of us see entertainment as the most important thing in life."


I'm afraid though, PJ, that we're in a very tiny minority.
And we will be crushed.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Everything COMES here
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 01:25 PM EST
Please post completed work here. If posting HTML'd text, please post in
"Plain Old Text" mode so that PJ can copy-and-paste the markups.

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Internet makes things possible that never happened before in the history of the world.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 01:44 PM EST

The biggest thing the Internet does is so vast, I wonder just how many people realize the potential of the value. What is this vast thing?

The Internet allows world-wide communication to a level never ever before experienced. It tears down walls, removes borders. It allows a level of communication that promotes understanding between various cultures allowing people of diverse backgrounds to become understanding friends.

For those that don't grasp what I'm refering to, think of a single thing that is corrected by gaining understanding: prejudice. Obviously it doesn't correct prejudices held by those who are unreasonable to understanding. But for those civilized who want to understand, the power is tremendous.

That is just the tip of the iceburg for the value the no-borders, no-walls, open communication between any culture with access to the Internet provides.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Speaking of control freaks ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 01:44 PM EST
Control freaks that they are, they thought they could control the Internet. Have they stopped trying?
I agree that Microsoft are control freaks, but doesn't that sound like Apple too? They want to control our "experience".
Old-fashioned copyright owners want the Internet to cut it out and be about them feeding us content and we sit back and just consume what they send us. After we pay. And agree to DRM.
Sounds like the new iPad to me with Apple feeding us content through iTunes and we just sit back and consume. And pay. And agree to DRM.

-the former DodgeRules-

[ Reply to This | # ]

Out of Print - The Google Books Settlement Culture Clash, and What About Fair Use?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 02:07 PM EST
Many's the time I've bought an out of print book. Been finding them lately on
the internet.

Who gets the money? Not the publisher. Not the Author. The book re-seller.
The individual who takes a bet by carrying a title, paying for storage,
advertising the existance of the book, that is no longer in print, in the off
chance someone somwhere will want to buy it.

If anyone should be concerned, it might be the book re-seller.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 02:09 PM EST
Wow! Groklaw loves to insult people now. I'm a freak because I choose to use
Mono and Ubuntu.

I guess its only freedom if I choose to do what you want me to do? These
freetards are a bunch of control freaks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Culture Clash - the internet video plus problem
Authored by: tz on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 02:21 PM EST
I would note that Microsoft started doing the same thing but gave up - scanning
books. Orphan works are still a problem. And AFAIK, anyone can scan an old
book or type it in for Project Gutenberg - Google is just the one doing it.

But we just had another entry in the "kill thy competitor" standard.

IE refuses to support HTML5, they want you to switch everything to Silverlight.

Apple loves HTMl5, but only H.263, with its encumberances - you won't see
Ogg/Vorbis/Theora on anything from Apple. Ever. Probably even if W3C adopts

Google acquired On2 who would have any patents Theora might need. I don't know
what they are doing, but YouTube has HTML5, but not in Ogg/Theora

Adobe still has (macromedia) Flash and rightly points out that at the time,
there was Flash and the 10x bigger (and more intrusive!) Quicktme, which Apple
has all but killed - it is an optional legacy piece in Snow Leopard.

However let me point out that Flash is not just video. Things like Google
Street View on maps requires flash and doesn't do any audio or video, but is
used to show and tag pictures. Silverlight (bing maps) does similar things -
the audio, video, pictures, SVG, etc. are objects, but there is a language
around it for manipulating them.

So something like the Nokia internet tablets running Linux and a Mozilla
derivative and real flash can do the full internet experience neither iPhone or
Android can do (within the CPU limitations). All flash sites, not just YouTube
via a special app.

So Jobs says Flash is buggy, but they didn't fix Quicktime to actually compete,
the killed it. Microsoft hates it and wants everyone to move to their own
proprietary Silverlight which will only run (properly) on Win/IE. Google Chrome
and Firefox might break the gridlock (except on the iPhone/iPod/iPad) by just
supporting everything - do HTML5 with Theora and plug-ins.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would tend to side with the Internet Archive
Authored by: xtifr on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 03:02 PM EST

I haven't been following the case as closely as I should, and there's a lot of players I don't trust opposed to Google on this, but there's one player that I trust far more than I trust even Google, and that's the Internet Archive.

The publishers may have their misguided agendas. Microsoft may be in it simply because they want to oppose Google at every step. But as long as the Internet Archive continues to oppose the settlement, my feeling is that we probably should as well.

I've been peripherally involved with the IA for years, and have friends that work there, and they're big promoters of Creative Commons and Open Culture and sharing. They're a official member of the American Library Association. In addition to their famous "Wayback Machine", they have what is probably the world's largest collection of public domain and creative-commons media, all freely available for download by anyone. Their "Netlabels" collection was the first to offer essentially unlimited storage to bands that wanted to promote themselves by offering their music for free on the Internet. They're a registered non-profit whose entire goal in life is to make as much information available to as many people as possible.

Ultimately, this whole thing seems to be about control. Google are generally good guys, but they're still a for-profit company out to make a buck, and I'm not sure I trust them with too much control over my culture. Sure, some of the people who oppose them are people who want control themselves: the publishers, Amazon, Microsoft--and I don't trust those folks either. Not a bit. But that still doesn't mean I want a single company in control. I may not trust the opposition's agenda, but that doesn't mean I think they're wrong. As long as the Internet Archive--which stands for freedom and sharing--continues to oppose Google, I'm going to have to oppose it as well, even if it means that I somehow find myself (shudder) on the same side as Microsoft, temporarily.

Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ursula K. LeGuin has lost a lot of reputation over this
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 04:19 PM EST
I guess her hope was to bank on her Q-factor to get something accomplished, but
the last paragraph on page 3 of the PDF is self-contradictory, ignorant of
copyright law, and ignorant of the United States Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8.
It does not speak well of her, that her writing skills failed her, and she
didn't catch it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Google Books Settlement Culture Clash, and What About Fair Use?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 04:27 PM EST
I'll be waiting for the used ebook stores to open up. Many
new books are way over priced as far as I'm concerned,
especially in the technical areas.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The difference between B&N and Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 04:56 PM EST
pj writes "Barnes and Noble provided a section just for that. Coffee even.
Did we have to pay to read your books that way? What exactly is the difference
between that and Google Books"
The difference is the cost of entry. With the print model I could go to B&N
.. or another book seller. There are several chains because the cost of entry to
the market is manageable. If Google win there will be no other options. No-one
else will put up the money for an uncertain return in the face of the
overwhelming market and mind share that Google have.
If I was negotiating this I would require Google to submit a copy of every
scanned work to the Library of Congress and see how they responded.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Insane Copyright
Authored by: red floyd on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 05:01 PM EST
"Some Authors Guild authors, ... are satisfied now, as are the families of John Steinbeck ...
Yeah, because if Steinbeck doesn't get royalties, he won't write anything else...

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Google Books Settlement Culture Clash, and What About Fair Use?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 06:21 PM EST
There's a simple way to fix the settlement. Make it Opt-In instead of opt-out.
It's illegal and immoral to take property without compensation. If I break into
your home and steal your dead grandmother's wedding ring from a storage box, but
you don't notice it for years (e.g. after the statue of limitations expires),
does that make it any less wrong? No. Theft is theft.

This is an exclusive agreement for a single (evil) company to sieze the
intellectual property of thousands of individuals (remember - Authors usually
own the copyright, not publishers) without notification or compensation. Let's
not pretend that Google is some altruistic company - they're in this for profit,
which is why they want an exclusive exemption to copyright law. Seems to me
that violates the equal protection clause.

If you want to fix the orphaned works problem, then it's simple. Restore
copyright to the original intent, something like 20 years plus life of the
author (or 70 years total if the copyright is owned by a corporation).
Trademarks don't expire, so no one can make new Micky Mouse cartoons, but the
old ones would pass into public domain. Fair use still covers both old and new
ones for use in derivative works.

You can't ignore a law you don't agree with, without being willing to pay the
penalty. That's the same for the 55 mile an hour speed limit as it is for
copyright. Fix the law, obey it, or pay the penalty. Anything else is like
robbing a bank and thinking that you earned the money just because you didn't
get caught.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Readers of this blog entry, please note
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 07:50 PM EST
The author of this blog entry (PJ) has put her own money where her mouth is.
Or, more specifically, she has put her own lack of money where her mouth is.

PJ has been writing this blog for, what, seven years now? It has become THE
place to go to learn about a couple of interesting court cases, and more broadly
to learn how law intersects with software. She's poured her life into this for
seven years.

PJ doesn't get paid for this. She lets us read for free. I mean, yes, there's
a tip jar where you can make donations, but even if you don't make one, you
still get to read what she's written. All of it, for the last seven years. For
free. Look at the volume produced. It's impressive. Most of it took research
as well as thought.

Keep that in mind if you are tempted to write her opinion off as coming from
someone who has no idea how hard writing really is, or how the real world works.
She knows.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Hows about this
Authored by: LaurenceTux on Monday, February 01 2010 @ 09:04 PM EST
All the book sellers/publishers register their inventory with Google (heck id
bet most of this is done already)
for every book that somebody currently sells Google provides a store link.
result Google becomes a Giga Class bookstore the folks all get paid folks get to
browse books and everybody is happy

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would suggest watching this if you can.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 02 2010 @ 03:23 AM EST
It is on BBC's Iplayer service, so you might need Tor or similar, and I found it very enlightening about our opponents. Take a look at their faces... malevolence personified. Oh, and it does not mention Linux once. Not to be missed IMHO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would suggest watching this if you can. (Now with a link!!!)
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 02 2010 @ 03:25 AM EST
It is on BBC's Iplayer service, so you might need Tor or similar, and I found it very enlightening about our opponents. Take a look at their faces... malevolence personified. Oh, and it does not mention Linux once. Not to be missed IMHO. Link

[ Reply to This | # ]

Applying outside the US
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 02 2010 @ 07:57 AM EST
> One author, Ursula Le Guin, has gotten hundreds of authors to sign a
petition [PDF] asking the judge to exempt the US from the agreement

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how the agreement can
apply outside of the US. As it's a US class-action lawsuit, wouldn't the class
applies to be contained within the US, and an exemption making the
agreement somewhat pointless.

For example if Google started scanning books by French authors, they might
have to deal with a separate suit in France; or a lawsuit in Australia from
Australian authors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another view by author/publisher Jim Baen
Authored by: coats on Tuesday, February 02 2010 @ 08:57 AM EST
See for an article by science fiction author Eric Flint. A quote:
Baen Books is now making available for free a number of its titles in electronic format...

Why are we doing this? Well, for two reasons.

The first is what you might call a "matter of principle." This all started as a byproduct of an online "virtual brawl" I got into with a number of people, some of them professional SF authors, over the issue of online piracy of copyrighted works and what to do about it.

There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!...

I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:

1. Online piracy while it is definitely illegal and immoral is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.

2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender...

3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom...

In the course of this debate, I mentioned it to my publisher Jim Baen. He more or less virtually snorted and expressed the opinion that if one of his authors how about you, Eric? were willing to put up a book for free online that the resulting publicity would more than offset any losses the author might suffer.

Flint goes on to show how his -- and other -- book sales went up sharply in correlation with the availability of the free editions.

The evidence is on his side, not Ursula Leguin's.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Google Books Settlement Culture Clash, and What About Fair Use? - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 02 2010 @ 04:29 PM EST
I understand your position, and I agree with some of it. But you fail to
understand theirs. You're right, this isn't about saving the authors at all.
But, think about it. How many books get published every single year?

They are scared of introducing a new and overwhelming competiton. By making
every out of print book available for free on the Internet, why would anyone
need to buy a new book ever again? They would basically be completely flooding
the online market with thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of books, all
there for free, all there competing with what publishers are trying to make a
living from. Sure... in the short run, you're killing a large number of small
publishers, a significant portion of which operate at a loss, surviving on
government grants and literary projects in school systems. In the long're killing the authors that these small publishers hire.

The legal issues make it look like it's about control... but really... there's a
bigger issue at stake. And maybe you don't care, and maybe you don't believe me,
and maybe it doesn't matter. But my wife runs a small children's book publisher.
And if all their out of print books come out for free and compete with their
current ebooks... their simply out of that portion of the business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

freemasons everywhere should be shunned
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 03 2010 @ 11:35 AM EST
in the "old" days it was there order that preserved and allowed
information ot be shared because the church would not allow it.

NOW its law and govt with there help doing the same thing.
and its world wide

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )