Don't Mess With Texas

Many states have objected to the Google Book Settlement on the grounds that it violates their unclaimed property and charitable trusts laws.

I chose to read the letter from the State of Texas simply because I thought it might have more attitude than say, Connecticut.

I was pretty disappointed, as the letter doesn't use any Texas-isms, and is rather dry and straight forward.

Oh, well. At least it gives me an excuse to embed this clip from Pee Wee's Big Adventure.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/334/0.pdf

Congressional Hearing on Settlement Turns into Google Love Fest

If you have 3 or more hours to kill you can watch the webcast of the Congressional Hearing last Thursday on the Google Author Settlement.

I tried to fast forward through it and everything I stopped on really pissed me off.

The blind guy talking about how Google was going to give him back his sight (by ripping me off blind!) . . . talk of kids in the barrio (really, is this guy going to break into song from West Side Story?) . . . more talk from Google (an African American guy answering an African American representative's question about how Google has addressed the original plaintiffs' complaints) about how they have devised a wonderful compromise with plaintiffs that will elevate society to utopia inducing hope filled beautiful days -- really, it was enough to make me wanna puke.

Maybe I'll just really bad at skipping through content, or maybe 90 percent of the hearing went like that, with a little downer from the head of the copyright office thrown in.

I don't know if I can stomach watching 3 hours of this Google propaganda, but I will say the real news that did come out of this hearing was the copyright office saying that the Settlement is fundamentally at odds with the law.

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_090910.html

My Opposition Letter is Deemed "Charming"

The Copyright Office Doesn't Cotton to Google Changing Copyright Law

The head honcho of the U.S. Copyright Office didn't have a whole lot to say about the Google Author Settlement according to this story, but those few words were deadly.

Parts of the settlement are "fundamentally at odds with the law," Marybeth Peters, head of the U.S. Copyright Office, testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday that was webcast. She also expressed concerns that the settlement would undermine Congress' ability to govern copyrights and could have "serious international implications" for books published outside the United States.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/178856.asp?from=blog_last3

Fishes and Nets and Donkeys and Carrots

The DC Comics Objection talked of fishes and nets, and it reminded me of donkeys and carrots and just how we got this particular "settlement".

My simple theory is that Google wrote the complicated Settlement Agreement including the $30 Million Dollars for Plaintiffs' counsel and pointed this plum portion out to them at settlement negotiations.

I'm guessing the attorneys (who were supposedly representing ripped off writers) were blinded by greed, and made little if no revisions to Google's grand plan.

Maybe that's just me distilling nearly 400 pages into something I could probably Tweet, but I think I nailed it.

Many and Varied Objectors take on "The Powers That Be"

Okay, last post I celebrated the many "quote unquotes" embedded in the vast array of Objector briefs filed in the Google Author Settlement.

Perhaps no one made airquotes funnier than Chris Farley, so I pay tribute by "embedding" him here.

The Caped Crusader KAPOW!!! takes on Google AWK!!!

DC Comics filed a dandy Objection in the Google Author Settlement today. I would have liked it better if it was in cartoon, comic, or even graphic novel form, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

I like the little digs like "so called "settlement"" -- there are a lot of "quote unquotes" in many of these Objections, and they do sort of crack me up. Here's another -- "It is extraordinary that such rights can be negotiated and potentially conveyed in the form of what purports to be a "class action"". Another gem: "Google appears to have applied a "copy first and negotiate later" approach." Hmmm, I couldn't have said it better myself. On the next page DC writes "Google attempted a "land grab" for in-copyright books. It adopted a "scan and display first, ask questions later" operating principle for the Library Project." Okay, now they are starting to repeat themselves, but I still don't mind because I keep thinking fond thoughts of the TV show "Batman" from the 1960's.

So, without further adieu, let's see how Batman handles the Joker and his stolen works.