Microsoft's Dog in this Fight

Well, this lowly Author has little chance of getting a fair shot with the Google Author Settlement, but Microsoft and it's war chest might get it's day in court.

This interesting article entitled "Who’s Messing With the Google Book Settlement? Hint: They’re in Redmond, Washington" illustrates perfectly why the Google Author Settlement isn't about Authors at all, but rather, control of the internet. Click here: Who’s Messing With the Google Book Settlement? Hint: They’re in Redmond, Washington Epicenter Wired.com

Here is a meaty excerpt --

"Explaining what the New York Law School brings to the party,Kornstein cited its mission "to understand the interplay of law and technology and influence their development to serve democratic values in the digital age … to extend human knowledge and harness new informational tools to the goals of social justice." The Institute, he writes, "is in a position to make a significant contribution to the resolution of the legal issues in dispute by virtue of its recognized scholarly expertise in intellectual property and Internet law.”

And, oh, by the way, he also discloses that the efforts of "the second oldest independent law school in the United States" is funded in part by Google’s main competitor, Microsoft.

The chief investigator of the New York Law School project is JamesGrimmelmann. In an earlier career phase, associate law professorGrimmelmann worked as a programmer for Microsoft. At a conference inFebruary, Grimmelmann was discussing his views of the book settlement with a policy specialist of his former employer, and the Microsoft exec reminded Grimmelmann that the company has had a continuing interest in funding academic efforts.

On March 11, Grimmelmann laid out the project in a proposal sent toMicrosoft. The amicus brief is one four initiatives the Law School will undertake. The others are a series of white papers, a symposium on the settlement issues, and a website that will act as a hub of activity for those challenging or asking for changes on the settlement. Grimmelmann proposed that Microsoft’s contribution to fund these efforts should be$50,000, and he now confirms Microsoft pledged that amount. ThoughGrimmelmann says other contributors may emerge, currently Microsoft is the sole outside funder of New York Law School’s Google Book SettlementProject.

Microsoft says that its behavior should be viewed in the context of similar academic grants over the years. "We are funding this like we fund dozens of law projects," says Tom Rubin, Microsoft’s chief counsel for intellectual property strategy. "The issues that are implicated in the settlement are important ones. New York Law School has taken an important position on orphan works and they deserve to be heard."

Rubin says that as with other instances of Microsoft funding of academic projects, the recipients maintain their independence and are free to reach any conclusions. He won’t comment on whether Microsoft itself plans to file an objection to the settlement.

It may be a good investment on Microsoft’s part, but doesn’t theMicrosoft money taint New York Law School’s efforts? "I’m sure there’s a danger in being perceived as compromised," says Grimmelmann. "But I know it’s not affecting our work. Microsoft is willing to send us money to do good work with our students and we’re happy to take it."(Grimmelmann’s own stance on the Google Settlement, first expressed in a blog posting last November, is rather nuanced. He thinks it’s a positive development, but wants significant change — generally, ones that restrain Google. He also says that at various times, his positions on issues have been anti-Microsoft as well as anti-Google.)

My conversation with Grimmelmann came just after his session at theEast Coast Foo Camp last weekend, a conference run by O’Reilly Media.The name of the session was "Hacking the Google Book Settlement."

Turns out that cleverest hacker here is Microsoft, making an academic grant that may help put some judicial heat on its rival."

Okay, can I puke now? What the hell is the "East Coast Foo Camp"?!, and what is with all these damn sessions, and conferences, where the Google Author Settlement is discussed in detail, but apparently THERE ARE NO ACTUAL CLASS MEMBERS THERE!!!!

Yeah, I'm also pretty pissed off with all these so-called academics getting money from mega corporations to discuss so-called legal issues when all they are doing is taking the cash, and running their mouths. I mean what the fuck do they really care, beyond their paychecks?

I'd feel better having Michael Vick as a neighbor.

An Audience of One

To blog, or not to blog, that is the question. The New York Times had an article in the Style section about all the bloggers like me, who like to hear themselves type. The piece is called http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/fashion/07blogs.html?hpw "Blogs Falling in an Empty Forest" and it gives some statistics that are daunting, but really don't surprise me one bit. 95% of blogs are abandoned (I've abandoned two, but may resurrect them to link to this one), and most have an audience of one -- the writer.

I could really identify with the statement that "many people start blogs with lofty aspirations — to build an audience and leave their day job, to land a book deal, or simply to share their genius with the world."

Hmmm, I landed a book deal, and left my day job, but not by blogging. What you probably don't want to hear (but you are not listening anyway) is that writing and publishing a book is really not the glamourous life it is all cracked up to be. Yes, I could identify with Carrie Bradshaw and her book signing party -- I even had a book tour, though it didn't involve taking Amtrak across the country. It was surreal and fun to see a line of people waiting for my autograph, and to put on the headphones at the Sirius studios in New York for an interview.

The money was paltry and the movie deal never materialized -- so I went back to a day job, when I got tired of going to bed at the crack of dawn, sleeping most of the day, and selling off my cherished belongings on eBay to survive.

After the New York Times admits that some bloggers just get tired of blogging, the article ends on a positive note, with some bloggers starting new blogs. I have two or three new blog ideas, and I just might start them.

At any rate, I think blogging does keep writers writing, and that in itself can be useful. I always recommend that anyone who wants to write a book should blog. If you can crank out 500 - 1,000 words a day, the discipline alone will take you far in your quest. In this day and age however, with Google killing traditional book selling as we knew if, don't expect an advance and free trips to Paris to promote the fruits of your labor.

You might want to consider blogging your own personal diary, and if you can amuse yourself then at least you had a laugh or two.

Badda BING!

Microsoft strikes back with Bing.com which launched Wednesday -- now you have an alternative to Google. You may have seen the ads, which I don't particularly like, but I Binged myself and was pleasantly surprised with the results.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=29590

This review of my book entitled "Grand Master Flash" by Pamela Murray Winters is really indepth and insightful. In fact I like it SO much, I'm going to copy the whole thing right here -

"It was Roy Rogers who made Nudie what he was. Slated to appear at Madison Square Garden, the famous Western star wanted to make sure everyone saw him. So he called on the imaginative “rodeo tailor.”

“Nudie loaded up a metallic-leather fringed shirt with rhinestones, and when Roy made his entrance and the lights hit him, he sparkled up a storm.” So recounts Nudie the Rodeo Tailor: The Life and Times of the Original Rhinestone Cowboy, Jamie Lee Nudie and Mary Lynn Cabrall’s picture-book-cum-bio on Jamie Lee’s famous granddad.

They don’t give us the date—the book isn’t strong on such detail—and they don’t give us the photo. But if you’re at all familiar with Nudie (1902–1984), you can get the picture. Any rhinestone cowboy you ever saw—Nudie inspired Glen Campbell to write his song—any tricked-up celluloid rider, anyone with the kind of cowboy duds that ought never to be sprayed with cow shit probably owed something to the fevered imagination of the Russian immigrant tailor, whose famous shop still exists online.

Nudie always grasped at the cuffs of American celebrity. After brief stints as an errand boy for Eddie Cantor, a stage-fright-struck musician, a 106-pound pugilist called “Battling Nudie,” a negative cutter in Hollywood, and a Leavenworth inmate (in 1918, he was caught delivering a package containing cocaine), he returned to the family trade in the ’20s. He and his wife, Bobbie Cohn—whom he met in the genuine horse country of Mankato, Minn.—opened Nudie’s for the Ladies near Times Square in 1934. (“[H]e toiled in the cramped, hot dressing rooms of a dying vaudeville and a burgeoning burlesque.”) By the ’40s, the couple was in Hollywood, where the enterprising stitcher “made frequent trips to the drugstore, eyeing the lovely young ladies who populated Tinsel Town, on the proposition of getting them out of their pants and into his—custom-made trousers, that is.” Working from a pingpong table in his garage, he convinced country-western musician Tex Williams to buy him a sewing machine so that he could make costumes for Williams’ band. He opened Nudie’s Rodeo Tailors in 1950; the famous storefront with bucking broncos on the roof and a life-size horse on the sidewalk, on Lankershim Boulevard in North Hollywood, didn’t open until 1960, by which time his reputation was well-established.

Nudie’s themed suits were exquisite. Webb Pierce had one based on his song “In the Jailhouse Now,” pictured in the book; it featured keys on the upper lapels and barred buildings on the jacket and trousers. (Paths leading away from the jailhouses on the legs featured signposts reading “To Nudie’s.”) He also did more standard couture—if not workaday clothing for real cowpokes. He provided costumes for Bonanza and The Andy Griffith Show, and he tailored for real equestrians as well as celluloid ones.

It wasn’t just for anyone with a drawl; it was for anyone with a need for a big hat or a lapel full of spangles. The best-known Nudie suit was a tuxedo made of gold lamé; it encased the notorious hips of one Elvis Presley on the cover of 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong. It was often described as a “$10,000 suit,” though the book reveals: “Nudie remarked that $9,950 of the price was pure profit....[T]he bill to Elvis for the suit was probably $2,500.”

The glitzy needlesmith made the leap that the King himself failed to make: from Eisenhower-era flashmaster to paisley-era ironic hipster. As the Flying Burrito Brothers reinvented country music for the patchouli set, Gram Parsons became one of Nudie’s best customers. (His most famous suit was emblazoned with marijuana leaves; it doesn’t appear in this squeaky-clean book.) The fad spread beyond California: In a promo shot from the early ’70s, Elton John is shown with the big brim of his cowboy hat full of fist-sized stars and a two-piece white suit embroidered with roses. Nudie, who favored his own duds, made the cover of Rolling Stone in 1969, next to the quote “Don’t give me no plastic saddle, Hollywood, I want to feel that leather when I ride.”

How he got on that high horse—well, that’s not explained in detail in Nudie and Cabrall’s book. We get basic biographical detail: the origin of his name (when 11-year-old Nuta Kotlyarenko emigrated to the United States in the 1910s, Ellis Island renamed him “Nudie Cohn”), the source of his fondness for the American West (his mother ran the concession stand in the local movie house, where “Nuta’s young imagination was intrigued with the American celluloid cowboys who came thundering across the screen”), even his later predilection for mismatched boots (the impoverished Brooklynite was once given two odd boots by a compassionate schoolteacher). His father was, in fact, a bootmaker back in Kiev, and he was a tailor’s apprentice as a child. But the source of his outsize imagination, the tricks to the business acumen that made him a Hollywood legend, and any darker side of a life spent measuring the glitterati’s inseams are overlooked.

What we’ve got here instead is a dazzling data dump from the Nudie family photo albums, arranged in a book whose design (by Dawn DeVries Sokol) is as kitschy and minutely detailed as the work of the man himself, exuberantly lashed with curlicue “stitches” and a passel of Wild West fonts. The die-cut cover opens onto an endpaper of the man himself, looking dapper in a kelly-green suit studded with a vaguely Native American design, behind the wheel of one of the ornate cars he decorated in his spare time.

A whole book could be devoted to the Nudie Mobiles, but there’s just one intriguing chapter here, which explains that Nudie got a car, usually a white Pontiac convertible, from General Motors every year from the mid-’50s to the mid-’70s. Nudie would customize these cars as lavishly as his couture. One Bonneville was decorated with 555 silver dollars—on the dash, the armrests, and the silver-topped saddle he added between the front seats—and it used pistols to operate the doors, transmission (a pull of the trigger changed gears), and horn.

There’s much to be seen in Nudie, especially for design aficionados, with close-up detail of some of the chain-stitch embroidery, rhinestones, leatherwork, and other offerings from the Nudie studio. Celeb watchers will enjoy photos of the famous and the once-famous, from Campbell (dressed as if he never contemplated a star-spangled rodeo) and Ann-Margret to major Nudie customer Judy Lynn (“Now thru July 1 [at] Harrah’s Reno”). There’s plenty of good stuff to read, of course, though you could just stick to the pull quotes and photo captions (“the rhinestone outlining on Nudie suits rivals the electricity of Las Vegas for pure dazzle”) and be sufficiently entertained. (When, near the end of the chapter “Nudie’s for the Ladies,” a photo of one woman entertainer is cattily captioned “That’s no lady, that’s k.d. lang!” you sense that the apples haven’t fallen far from the Nudie family tree.) Mostly it’s lots and lots and lots of shots of Grandpa, with his Stetson, his clunky glasses, his smile like a hammock stretched between a couple of cartoon tree trunks, his paunch ever growing between his glittery lapels.

In the chapter called “The Stars”—where Nudie hangs out with his customers—explanations are tantalizingly absent. Did a barefoot Goldie Hawn pick up a pair of custom boots at the store? What is the mosaiclike picture held by Dean Martin and Nudie in their grip-and-grin shot? And what on earth did Nudie ever do for Regis Philbin?

Through the candy-floss coating of his granddaughter’s prose, you can still glimpse anecdotes of simple charm, such as when the Russian immigrant was commissioned by John Wayne to make and present hats to a group of cosmonauts. Nudie was a proud businessman—though the sometime mandolin player must have seethed, at least occasionally, about playing second fiddle to the dudes whose shoulder pads he installed. And he was apparently a happy family man—although there’s an element of the-lady-protests-too-much about the chapter showing Nudie with lotsa hotties, including a lanky brunette in a spangled, ’70s-looking halter top, the caption of which photo reads: “Such a look on Nudie’s face: how’d a guy get so lucky? He had an understanding wife who stood by him, that’s how. But don’t pity Bobbie, she gets her chance at being photographed with some leading men, too.”

Hmmm. There’s probably a larger story to be told here: about the family business and its familial and business pressures, about the history of fancy dress in cowboy culture (vaqueros are mentioned briefly), about latter-day hipster adoption of kitsch. Some smaller stories could have been gussied up as well, such as the “suit parties” of Nudie’s later life, in which socialites would commission him to dress entire galas.

Ultimately, Nudie is little more than a purty coffee-table book. But if the inside story of the canny businessman/artist has yet to be written, this lavish, worshipful effort is not without its pleasures. Nudie himself would surely approve; after all, he knew the importance of looking good. "

Now, THAT's what I call a book review!!! She really nailed it. Yes, we wrote a "Nudie primer" glossing over the details, because every great entertainer knows "you always leave them wanting more."

We were coy, breezy, and simple, and saved the juicy bits for the following books (if Google hadn't killed the market) and of course, the screenplay.

Yes, Nudie knew the importance of looking good, and doling out the goods in amounts that can be easily digested, enjoyed, and paid for. We got plenty more where that came from, and just like this clever reviewer suspects, and Jamie Nudie is fond of saying "the man behind the (rhine) stone has much to reveal."

Picture-book-cum-bio is what we set out to do, and what we accomplished, and I am so glad Ms. Winters sees it for exactly what it is. Her review is every bit as embellished, fun, and accurate in detail as a Nudie Suit.

Money Changes Everything

It never ceases to amaze me how a big fat paycheck can make people change their tune. I haven't read the original complaint filed in the Google Author class action, but I think I'm safe in guessing that at least part of my beef (copyright infringement and fair use) with Google is similar to those outlined by the Author's Guild and their attorney Michael Boni back in 2005.

The difference now of course is that Michael Boni has Google waving a $15 Million dollar carrot in front of his face to settle this case.

In my course to find representation I was directed to J. Garchik (who held a seminar on the settlement in San Francisco) by Dan Girard who is too busy to help me, because he has sued every financial institution on the face of the earth in wake of the financial crisis. Here is my original email -

Hello!

I will be opting out of this Google Author Class Action Settlement, and am looking for representation. Personally, I was outraged to find that Google had scanned my book
and had made it available online. The old adage "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?," precisely describes the predicament.

My damages include lost royalties from dimished book sales -- and as my book is photo heavy, I have also lost usage fees for those photographs. I have found photos from my book all over the internet in blogs, ebay listings, and other postings, and I am certain Google facilitated this.

The original class action complaint makes simple copyright infringement claims, the antitrust issues appear to arise out of the terms of the settlement, but may be present regardless, considering Google's position and strength. From what I've read, I deduce that the judge is mindful of the opposition, but prone to approve the settlement.

My publishing deal was very small, and I estimate my damages to be around $10,000. If there are 1,000 opt outs which is a reasonable number if authors are made aware of the settlement (the only notice I received was from my publisher when the 4 month extension was granted, if it wasn't (I can thank the John Steinbeck family for that) I would have been s.o.l.) then the value of the class on the very low end would be at least $10 Million dollars. That would not include future damages in Google tying up access to intellectual property.

There is much press, and certainly lots more to come and generate as writers are also class members, friends of class members, or could have future works affected by the settlement. Simply put, if affected writers are active readers, then there should be a flood of dissent, and a huge pool of opt outs.

As far as I can tell, a law firm has not stepped forward to represent the interests of the opt outs. Let me know if you are interested. You can reach me on my cell phone. Thanks!

Here is the response I got from J. Garchik -

I think you should reconsider your opt out decision.
Maybe you do not understand the settlement. see www.googlegooksettlement.com and the FAQs for details. Google claims it owes nothing and did nothing illegal under the fair use doctrine. You get $60 to $300 for your book under the settlement.
Your photos are not part of the settlement and are reserved for you.
J.Garchik,S F Atty

I felt this response was rather condescending, and my response to J. Garchik was forwarded by him to Michael Boni, who responded to my response with a blue line version (if you would like to read it you can scroll down) and then I responded to that, and so on and so on. It ended up with Michael Boni's final response, which was -


I am sorry you feel the way you do about the settlement, and for my presuming that your views were influenced by others. I guess I am getting a bit paranoid! You are of course right that Google is paying the costs of the Notice Program and to establish the Registry, and for other benefits as well. But Google will have no control over the Registry or its operations, nor did it have any control over the Notice Program. And I guess we’ll end up not agreeing on the sufficiency of the Notice Program.

In any case, I would be pleased to assist you in determining how your book ended up in Google’s database. If you tell me the title, I will ask Google. Also, if you let me know the name of your publisher, that may help as well.

Kind regards,

Mike
Michael J. Boni
Boni & Zack LLC
15 St. Asaphs Rd.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
610-822-0201
610-822-0206 (fax)
610-348-2526 (mobile)
mboni@bonizack.com



Thank you Mr. Boni for your attention to my concerns. I will have to point out your assumptions and inaccuracies, but I won't blue or red line to do it.

First off, I don't know if my book was in or out of print when it is scanned. If you could tell me how to determine that, I would love to know! I am currently out of print. I won't go into detail beyond that . . . I'm certain you realize your pitch on the Partner Program falls apart if I was out of print when I was scanned.

I do blame Google and its overexposure of books online for killing traditional sales of books, including mine.

I would also like to know if Google books was showing more than 20% of the book when it began, I remember seeing my book in its entirety online.

I have downloaded my own photographs off of Google Books, it is easy to do so.

Thank you for correcting me regarding the duty to notice. You're right, that is Plaintiffs responsibility --- but surely you don't expect me to believe that $20 Million dollars is coming out of your or the Author's Guild's pocket! Google is paying that money, and you have been working closely with Google to craft this Settlement.

And again for Google not establishing the registry, do you REALLY expect me to believe that the plaintiffs are ponying up the extra $14.5 Million ($34.5 - $20 Million for the Notice Program) to establish this entity???

We all know the Golden Rule . . . the one with the gold makes the rules.

But back to the notification of class members. It is WOEFULLY INADEQUATE!!! I only received notice, not directly, but forwarded as a link from my publisher to my co-writer, with her personalized message -- What the HELL is THIS? This was after the opt out period was extended. If not for the efforts of the Steinbeck family I would have been bound by the horrible terms of this settlement.

So whether the Notice Program cost $10 Million or $20 Million, it was money wasted.

It occurred to me today, that if the Notice had been printed and mailed to all the affected Authors that are easily found (my address is not on my book, but a people search costs as little as 25 cents, and simply asking my publisher for the current addresses of their Authors would have been free) it wouldn't have been cheap . . . but at least an inexpensive postcard to say "Your Rights Have Been Affected by the Google Author Settlement, visit this website or call this toll free number for more information" would have been a step in the right direction.

In fact, I suggest you do that. I've worked many a class action claims process. For many years *I* was the one doing exactly what you are doing now. Yes, it was my job to disseminate information on class action notices, and encourage people to participate in the settlements. So you see, I know of whence I speak.

I would also like to know exactly how much the Class Notice Program costs, and who is being paid what. If it is somewhere in the 300 page Settlement Agreement, please let me know where I can find this information.

As for Rightsholders being in full control of their works, that is only true if they are aware of the Settlement and the consequences. Otherwise, Google is profiting from their works.

As for the Ad Revenues issues, I think we are not understanding each other. Let's just say, I did not become aware of the Settlement, it was approved, and my book remained on Google Books. How would I possibly benefit from the Ad Revenue (and I mean an Ad for say . . . a kindle, or a bookmark, or a book reading light) that Google collected everytime someone flipped the page on my book online? In essence, Google is profiting by having and displaying access to my intellectual property.

My conclusions on the merits and faults on this settlement were made COMPLETELY on my own. As I mentioned before, I am well versed on the mechanics of class actions from start to finish, and if anyone could decipher a 32 page (!!!!) Settlement Notice, it would be me.

Even though I was made aware (again, by default) of this Settlment in early May, I have been busy, and really haven't thought about it at all until a little light bulb went off in my head last week. I looked over the Settlement Agreement and immediately knew I would be opting out, and that I should start the search for representation.

I did begin to research the Settlement online -- but believe me here -- if there was any hype to discount, it was the press releases generated by Plaintiffs and Google.

Honestly, I do not know who the detractors are that you are referring to -- most of the press I have read has been at least impartial, and some has been favorable. Let me make this very clear, I have not been contacted by any "self interested detractors." I am interested in preserving my rights, and the rights of Authors around the world. I have not yet contacted any of my writer friends and acquaintances to notify them of the Settlement, and ask their opinion about it. I prefer to do my homework first, and to find someone who will truly represent our rights in this situation. You should check your paranoia. . . or perhaps I need to delve further to understand who is objecting to the Settlement and why. I only know that *I* object to it, and will be opting out.



In a message dated 6/3/2009 1:06:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, MBoni@bonizack.com writes:


We represent the Author Sub-Class. Jerome Garchik, Esq., was kind enough to forward to me your email to him about the settlement. I hope you don’t mind, but I thought it might help if I responded to several points made in your email. Those responses are in blue, and are interspersed in the text of your email below. I think the biggest point to make is that much of what you complain of has to do with your publisher’s decision to participate in the Google Partner Program, which is a separate program that is not covered in or a part of the settlement. Also, the settlement could in no way have contributed to the display of your photos on the Internet. You should discuss with your publisher how those photos made their way onto the Internet.

We would be happy to discuss the settlement further with you at your convenience. If you still wish to opt out, we can assist you in doing that as well, but we hope you will decide to participate instead.

Best regards,

Michael J. Boni
Boni & Zack LLC
15 St. Asaphs Rd.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
610-822-0201
610-822-0206 (fax)
610-348-2526 (mobile)
mboni@bonizack.com



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:16:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Google Author Settlement Opt Out
To: jchikesq@gmail.com


Thank you for responding to my email, J. Garchik.

I do have a good grasp of the Settlement and I will most definitely be
opting out and pursuing my claims against Google.

I just received a Royalty Statement from my publisher, sent directly to me
at my current address. I've been told the Notice program for this
settlement cost $20 million dollars. This is inaccurate. The Notice Program will end up costing considerably less. If that is true, then I do not understand why
Google couldn't read my name, and the name of the publisher off of my book
that was scanned, and send a Class Action Notice directly to me. Google is
making no effort to track down Authors (in or out of print) and the
copyright holders of orphaned books. I am outraged. It is not Google’s obligation to send Notice; that is the duty of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have undertaken major efforts, themselves and through the nation’s leading class action professional Notice Provider, to locate as many rightsholders as practicable using reasonable efforts, as required under the law. Also, the term “orphaned books” has been used as a political football by the advocates of free and open Internet access to works, including in-copyright works. The vast majority of the books under the settlement are not “orphaned books” as that term has traditionally been used in copyright circles, but rather are books whose rightsholders are indeed being found through the Notice Program by the many thousands, and will continue to be found by the Registry on an ongoing basis.

$60 to $300 is a drop in the bucket (that is just one of many benefits of the settlement, and is provided only for those books that Google has already scanned as of May 5, 2009), and is akin to a slap in the face for Google scanning my book and making 20 percent of it available online. This has nothing to do with the settlement. Google is not displaying books under the settlement yet, and will not do so until after the settlement is finally approved and made effective by the exhaustion of all appeal possibilities. If Google is displaying 20% of your book, then that is because your publisher has authorized Google to do so. If you are unhappy with this, then you should contact your publisher and direct it to tell Google to remove your work if you have the contractual right to do so. Or you can contact Google directly and request that it not preview 20% (or any) of your book. My
photos have been downloaded off of Google Books and are appearing without my
permission all over the internet. Again, if Google has displayed any of your photos, that had nothing at all to do with the settlement, which excludes photographs. Your beef is with your publisher, which may have authorized Google to display some or all of your photos as part of the 20% preview display. Publications are now requesting photos
from me, and are shocked when I request a $100 (very reasonable) usage fee.
In years past, usage fees were part of doing business, and I had received
them from PBS, MTV, The New York Times, the London Guardian, as well as other
media companies.

Even though I understand I can request Google to take my book down (which I
will do) the damage is done. It is like closing the barn door after the
cow (which is giving its milk for free) has run away. Your publisher likely authorized Google to display portions of your book. Or it could be that you authorized your publisher to “promote” your book, and your publisher views Google’s Partner Program as promotional activity. In any case, this has nothing to do with the settlement, which has not yet been implemented.

Google receives ad revenue every time someone skims through my book on
Google Books. Google does not want to partner with authors and help them sell
books, that is hogwash. Google wants to control the online marketplace and
make money off of their ad revenue. The more books they make available (and
the more of that book that they show) the more money they make from the ads. Any present ad revenues, under the Partner Program (which is not part of the settlement), should be shared with the publisher and the publisher should share its cut with you if your contract calls for such a share. In fact, we understand that very few revenues have been generated under the Partner Program. When the settlement is effective and the programs go live, rightsholders will receive 63% of all ad revenues generated from ads placed on the rightsholders’ book pages, as well as 63% of the revenues generated from book sales and subscriptions sold to institutions. We believe that this is a great deal for rightsholders, especially those whose books are out of print and haven’t been read or purchased in years and decades.

Google establishing a non-profit (tax deductible of course) entity similar
to ASCAP to the tune of $34.5 Million dollars, to supposedly benefit
authors is another joke. In fact, Google is not establishing the Registry, the authors and publishers are, to enforce Google’s obligations under the settlement, locate rightsholders of out of print books, make sure the rightsholders are paid under the terms of the settlement, resolve rightsholder disputes, and otherwise represent authors’ and publishers’ interests. I was told that $20 Million of that is being used for the Class Notice Program (conveniently the Notice doesn't break this information down – it was impossible to do so at the time the Notice was published, as funds have been used since December 2008 to notify class members) that is too cheap to make even the slightest attempt to send me notice. Having your name listed on a book alone is insufficient to send you direct notice. Your address is not on the book. Your publisher should have sent you notice, and if it hasn’t you should contact your publisher and ask it why it has not done so. I only received notice by default (meaning what?) when the opt out period was
extended. Someone is pocketing a huge chunk of change here. . That is unfair and untrue every penny is accounted for and has been spent exclusively on the notice program and initial steps toward establishing the Registry.

Plain and simple this settlement is a sweetheart deal for Google, the
lawyers involved, and the claims administrator, with no real benefit to the
class. This is inaccurate. The benefits of the Settlement are summarized in the attached short outline of settlement benefits. It is designed to strip authors of their rights, transfer them to
Google, and line the pockets of Google and select members of the
legal community. This is just not so. No copyright ownership interests are being transferred to Google. The authorizations Google has received to use books under the settlement are non-exclusive only, meaning that no copyright ownership interests are being transferred at all. What is more, rightsholders at any time can exclude out of print works from any or all display uses, and can remove their works entirely from Google’s database if the request is made by 4/5/11. In print books will not be displayed at all unless both the publisher and author expressly include the books in the program. Rightsholders can set the price of their books; can tell Google not to place ads in the margins around their book pages; can tell Google not to show snippets of their books; can tell Google not to show previews of their books; can receive a hosted version of their books to sell on their own website if they like, and not share any revenues earned from those sales with anyone. In short, rightsholders are in full control of their works under the settlement, and Google’s rights are narrowly circumscribed. Please don’t buy the hype and deliberate misinformation being peddled by self-interested detractors of Google and, by extension, this very positive settlement for book authors.

Google can claim that it has down nothing wrong, and that what they did was
legal under the fair use doctrine, and of course, conveniently under the
terms of the settlement they can admit no guilt on this issue for eternity.

I've never been actively involved as a class member or party to litigation,
but I am well versed on the mechanics of class actions and the resulting
settlements. This is not my first rodeo.

I'll definitely be opting out, and I will be making sure that all my
author friends are aware of the settlement and do understand it. If you do, please review the Notice again, and consider the facts set forth herein, as your comments reveal some fundamental misunderstandings about the settlement.

I regret that I can not object once I have opted out, but I will do
everything in my legal power to let class members, the Court, the
Department of Justice, and the lawyers involved know where I stand. We now know where you stand. We regret that your position appears based on the writings of detractors of Google, of proponents of free and open access to copyrighted material on the Internet, and of those who are parroting the inaccurate statements of others. To recap, if your book is in print, it will not be displayed unless your publisher and you authorize its use under the settlement. If it is already being displayed, that is because your publisher has permitted Google to do so under the Partner Program, which has nothing to do with the settlement. As for books that are out of print, the settlement will provide new exposure for a new audience to read and pay for those books. Most authors see this as a very positive development in favor of author rights.

The $15 Million Dollar Man

This is Michael Bonihttp://www.bonizack.com/. And this is Michael Boni www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Boni/1007214715

This is what $15 Million Dollars collected from the Google Authors' Settlement will do for you. Impressive isn't it?

What Would You Do With $20 Million Dollars???

This is quite a juicy tidbit to ponder . . . the Claims Notice Program in the Google Author Settlement (I have it on good AUTHORity) is costing $20 Million Dollars. Funny, I got no notice at all. Well, thanks to the Steinbeck family I did become aware in a very roundabout way . . . but still, it makes me wonder. What the hell was that $20 Million dollars spent on?

I'm guessing that is a question for Rust Consulting http://www.rustconsulting.com/

God, I hate Rust Consulting. I used to have to deal with these jackasses every day. They never answer the phone, and if you make it through their automated answering service to someone's personal voicemail, you can expect to get a response in a week if you are lucky.

Sometimes I used to think it was the fickle Minnesota weather that kept my inquiries from being addressed in a businesslike fashion -- you see, if anything, I am always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. But no, Rust Consulting simply doesn't give a shit.

So, of course, when I realized they were handling the Google Author Settlement Notice program, I knew I was entirely on my own. There would be no one like me on the other end of the phone to answer my questions, and guide me through the process.

Which takes me back to my original question -- what is the $20 Million dollars being spent on.

Well, it so happens Rust has merged with Kinsella Media, and Kinsella Media gave this explanation in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/books/04google.html?_r=3&ref=arts

"But as it turns out, authors and publishers are hard to track down. More than members of most settlement classes, said Kathy Kinsella of Kinsella Media in Washington, which is directing the ad campaign, these are a particularly diffuse group. “We looked at how many books were published in various areas,” she said, “and we knew from the plaintiffs and Google that 30 percent were published in the U.S., 30 percent in industrialized countries. The rest of the world is the rest.”
“We had some choices,” she added. “We thought it made sense that in order to meet the due-process standard that we were as broad-based as possible.” So, using United Nations data, her company created a list of countries and territories. Some nations, including Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, were excluded because they do not agree to international copyright terms. In others, like Cuba, North Korea and Myanmar, her company is prohibited from buying ads because of United States trade embargos, Ms. Kinsella said."

Interesting. So all those International ads made sending me direct notice impossible? I really don't see that writers are any harder to track down than anyone else. In fact we should be darn easy to track down, because we wait for those royalty checks and statements to hit our mailboxes in a regular fashion.

And this explains the cost of the program -- "So while there is a large direct-mail effort, a dedicated Web site about the settlement in 36 languages (googlebooksettlement.com/r/home) and an online strategy of the kind you would expect from Google, the bulk of the legal notice spending — about $7 million of a total of $8 million — is going to newspapers, magazines, even poetry journals, with at least one ad in each country. These efforts make this among the largest print legal-notice campaigns in history." it doesn't account for the other $12 million dollars.

You see, David Stellings of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein told me he had just had lunch with Ms. Kinsella, and she said the notice program cost $20 Million dollars.

So Kathy Kinsella, perhaps you want to star in your own Mastercard ad.

Trip to Myanmar to check out the possibility of placing a Google Author Settlement Notice in the local papers - $8,934.

Rental of New York penthouse to facilitate interview with the New York Times. - $125,342.

Lunch at a fancy New York restaurant with potential clients who regularly notice class members of settlements - $648.

Kickback from the Google Author Settlement Notice program and bragging about the windfall to potential clients and anyone else who will listen - priceless.

Yeah, I guess I could see where it could ad up.

The Wagons are Circling!!!

Not my wagons . . . the wagons of Plaintiffs' counsel and the lawyers leeching off them by holding seminars explaining the Google Settlement to other lawyers. Let me explain . . . or has the mention of lawyers completely turned you off. I understand. One of my favorite lawyer metaphors in the old cartoon of the sheep dog and the wolf who fought all day, then punched out at 5 o'clock and went out together for drinks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheepdog_and_Ralph_Wolf

Yes, in the harsh light of day Plaintiffs and Defense lawyers may pretend that they hate each other, but come quitting time they are as thick as thieves.

REALLY!?!

I've been completely frustrated by my search for legal representation, and of course I will vent in these posts, but first I revisited the "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" Google Book page and the disclaimer I was looking for popped up this time.

When you reach page seven, Google tells you that you have reached your viewing limit, and if you click "why?" it says --

Why can't I read the entire book?

"Many of the books in Google Book Search come from authors and publishers who participate in our Partner Program. For these books, our partners decide how much of the book is browsable -- anywhere from a few sample pages to the whole book.
For books that enter Book Search through the Library Project, what you see depends on the book's copyright status. We respect copyright law and the tremendous creative effort authors put into their work. If the book is in the public domain and therefore out of copyright, you can page through the entire book and even download it and read it offline. But if the book is under copyright, and the publisher or author is not part of the Partner Program, we only show basic information about the book, similar to a card catalog, and, in some cases, a few snippets -- sentences of your search terms in context. The aim of Google Book Search is to help you discover books and learn where to buy or borrow them, not read them online from start to finish. It's like going to a bookstore and browsing - with a Google twist."

Oh really Google? REALLY!?! Then why is it that I can read 99% of "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" online??? Could it have something to do with the ad revenue that you generate when I flip through all those pages!?!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/13828/saturday-night-live-really-with-seth-and-amy

So you respect copyright law? REALLY!?! Is that why you scanned my book without permission? That is like Bill Clinton saying he loved cigars so much he used Monica Lewinski as a human humidor! Really?

And you respect the tremendous creative effort I put into my work? REALLY!?! Is that why you put as much tremendous creative effort into notifying me as a ghostwritten tweet from Britney Spears?!? REALLY!?!

And your aim is really to help us discover books and learn where to buy or borrow them, not read them online from start to finish. Really? Is that why you are aggressively promoting your Kindle software so that you can dominate the market for reading books online from start to finish?http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/technology/internet/01google.html?scp=1&sq=kindle%20google&st=cse Really!?!

And it's like going to a bookstore and browsing - with a Google twist. Really?

A twist . . . just like Osama Bin Laden saying he loves America so much he sent us his followers as martyrs to save our souls.

Really?!? Huh!

Thank you Seth and Amy.

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/really-gov-blagojevich/881482/