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.

Your Comment is Awaiting Moderation

Authors Guild Accuses Amazon of Hypocrisy in Google Filing

I just added my comment to the latest on the Google Author Settlement in the online version of the New York Times. Let's see if my pissed off rant is Times worthy . . .

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/authors-guild-accuses-amazon-of-hypocrisy-in-google-filing/#comment-316859

In response to Amazon’s filing in opposition to Google’s landmark settlement with publishers and authors, the Authors Guild, one of the parties to the settlement, fired back with a statement on its Web site late yesterday.

In its filing, Amazon said the settlement would violate antitrust laws by giving Google a monopoly over millions of so-called orphan works and create a cartel controlled by authors and publishers for setting prices for e-books.

“Amazon’s hypocrisy is breathtaking,” the guild’s statement read. “It dominates online bookselling and the fledgling e-book industry.”

The deadline for filing objections to the settlement was extended until Tuesday and various parties have been making a flurry of statements.

Today, a group of supporters of the settlement, including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and League of United Latin American Citizens, held a conference call to share their views, citing the social justice consequences of the settlement, which would make millions of books searchable online.

“Access to knowledge means access to equal opportunity,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
4 Comments
1. September 4, 2009
1:52 am

Link
Amazon’s opposition to the settlement may indeed be hypocritical, but it still makes a point worth considering.

— Paul

2. September 4, 2009
2:42 am

Link
I’m with Amazon on this one — I haven’t bought an actual Kindle, but I got the Kindle app on my iTouch, and it’s allowed me to download dozens of free, public domain books like the works of Jane Austen. I don’t want Google to have a monopoly on orphan works — I want to see them go up on Project Gutenberg and become free, downloadable e-books.

— PG

3. September 4, 2009
10:23 am

Link
So, what about CMU’s Project Gutenberg? Not as fancy as some eBooks, but zillions of texts. … and all LEGAL & FREE to download. The eBook creators *need* to add *value* to a non-copyrighted volume to be able to charge for it and make a viable profit. I’ll wait & see. …

Also, what’s the scoop on the “rights il perpetuity” copyrights in this country? These days, anything published after about 1935 has one of these. …

Finally, the book industry & writers’ guild needs to remember the revenge of the hackers on the Music Industry. … (Yeah, that group that sold you the same song in 45rpm, 8trk, cassette, 33rpm, CD, & digital-w/DRM? … all at FULL price?) The same may happen to books, and soon. The eBook folks had better hope that really inexpensive OCR software doesn’t become available. … (Cheap scanners may soon become the bane of Textbook sales. …)

PS. I have a bunch of classic 33rpms for sale (since I dumped my turntable 5 years ago). I also check out my books from the library. … I buy my CDs & spin them into my PC for personal use. … And, send some to my (antique) Treo650 for mobile play. … I WILL ***NEVER*** PURCHASE DRM MUSIC! Enjoy. …

— David Ecale

4. September 4, 2009
10:30 am

Link
One other note on Libraries (from my 2nd grade field trip to the Elmhurst Public Library in Elmhurst, Ill.):

Librarian: “You can 1) check out books from our collection, 2) check out books from Inter-Library-Loan if we don’t have them, and 3) Ask us to buy a book, if the other two options don’t work. …”

So I do. … and so should you. … The local library is the *best* use of your tax dollars. … Use a library wisely & only purchase a book that you wish to collect, read many times (after previewing it through the library), or need as a close and often used reference. …

Enjoy, …

— David Ecale

5. September 4, 2009
9:27 pm

Link
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Are you friggin’ kidding me?!!! “Access to knowledge means access to equal opportunity”???!!!! Google STOLE my book, and INFRINGED ON MY COPYRIGHTS!!! What about my equal opportunity NOT TO BE RIPPED OFF!!! I think I have the CIVIL RIGHT not to be victimized by Google!!! They don’t want to share knowledge, they want to make AD REVENUE by TRAMPLING on ME!!!

— casinocon

If you haven't guessed, I'm "casinocon".

Blown Out Tires, Exploding Gas Tanks and Coupon Class Action Settlements

I was reading yet another Objection in the Google Author Settlement (keep 'em coming, keep 'em coming) and one hit especially close to home. The Scott Gant objection which I've referenced before uses a coupon settlement procurred my former employer Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein as an example of the absurdity of uselessness of some settlements.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/08/03/ford-explorer.html

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/209/

The Jilted Lover Approach to The Google Author Settlement

Some people are so hurt and perplexed by the Google Author Settlement that they act like needy jilted lovers -- case in point -- the American Society of Media Photographers, Graphic Artists Guild, and The North American Nature Photography Association. I don't think these venerable organizations really understood what was happening to them, and what their attorney in turn decided to do . . . it starts out on the right path, and then turns into a victim's plea for more abuse.

In perusing the docket full of objections, oppositions, and amicus briefs available here http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/ this one caught my eye.

I myself an a writer and a photographer and both my words and images have been stolen by Google, so I was especially interested in what this brief (#218) had to say.

I learned that "Visual Rights Holders" were originally included in the Complaint, then cut out of the deal --

"Having acknowledged the legitimacy of Objectors' copyright interests and their substantial stake in this controversy, and having obtained whatever leverage was gained by the expansion of the plaintiffs' class to include them, class counsel then proceeded to eliminate the Objectors from the scope of the Settlement."

Whoa . . . Ouch!!! Used, and then dumped -- that's gotta hurt.

Well, if I was in that situation . . . and I am, I wouldn't get mad, I would get EVEN!!!

But, no these Objectors plead with Plaintiffs' counsel to take them back -- well sort of, they plead with the judge to MAKE Plaintiffs' counsel take them back -- including them in the settlement, with a totally lame excuse --

"Any suggestion that the Objectors can be adequately compensated for past infringements by filing separate actions or a "new" class action fails to conform to reality. Objectors lack the resources to file multitudes of individual infringement actions and there is no justification for forcing them to resort to a "new" class action and thereby by consumed by years of litigation and negotiation with Google over the terms of a separate deal."


So is this a veiled threat, or on the up and up? The problem is, whenever I ask lawyers direct questions about their intentions, they cage their motives and responses. The lawyer I work for tells me that is what makes a great lawyer. They never give you a straight answer. But if I can take this statement at face value (probably a mistake) the Objectors are really playing the victim.

I really like that "fails to conform to reality" bit. I mean come on, what reality are these lawyers at Dickstein Shapiro (a huge firm) talking about? It doesn't seem like the Objectors lack the resources to me . . . and besides that, litigating or engaging in settlement proceeding for a time is totally worth the payoff of $50 to $100 Million Dollars. But maybe that is just little ole me.

Cue Tammy Wynette -- she wrote amazing songs of strength and vunerability, but she didn't "Stand by her man like a little ole woman baking cookies" like Hillary Clinton eventually did (and falsely accused Tammy of doing), and she always said "The cure to get over a man, is a new man."

So even though I really appreciate this Objection on many levels, the Photographers and Shirley Saed of Dickson Shapiro need to grow a pair and file a "new" class action. Or I will.

Tammy . . . show us how it is done.

My Sentiments Exactly

Angela is pretty pissed off at Google for scanning her book without permission. The process to have your book removed from Google Books looks pretty difficult. In an earlier post I noted the run-around I got when dealing with Rust Consulting, the Google Author Claims Administrator when I mentioned Google Books. Just another layer of bullshit to wade through. Google is going down, if Angela and myself can get a good shot at them.

http://www.writersweekly.com/the_latest_from_angelahoycom/005572_09022009.html

I am furious with Google!
First, they took it upon themselves to scan numerous books and display the content of those books online. They thought they could legally do that. Many thought otherwise. They're now embroiled in a huge lawsuit that may not be settled for years...if ever.
In the meantime, they are still displaying 75% (YES, SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT!) of one of my books without MY permission. That is FAR beyond fair use! In response to my first demand for them to remove my book, they told me to contact my publisher. Yeah, right. My publisher doesn't own the rights to display my book online for free, either! In addition, there are chapters in the book that were submitted by others. We don't own the electronic rights to those submissions, either. This means Google has put itself, my publisher, and ME at risk of a lawsuit.
When I sent them another demand, detailing the facts above, they sent me a laundry list of steps I must complete to have them remove the book. A copy of that email appears at the end of this article. Why can't a simple email or letter do? Maybe if it was easy, everybody would do it and Google would have to remove all those titles. Maybe they thought if they make it difficult enough, far fewer authors would defy their (what I consider illegal) actions? Who knows?
What the person who emailed me didn't tell me was that I could simply opt-out using a form online and that this action would also cause them to remove my book from their database.
To opt-out instantly online, click here:http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/enter_opt_out
Why should you opt out? Quite simply, because there is no settlement yet. Google could very well end up owning the rights to print and resell your book with little or even no remuneration to you. That's right! Nothing has been signed by the judge so, by opting in (taking no action at all), you are agreeing to terms that haven't even been negotiated yet. Sure, they're offering payment of a one-time fee (last I heard it was $60 but, again, they could change that later and even eliminate it!) but you may end up with nothing or far less than your book and your rights are worth. This would, of course, affect your heirs, too.
I am opting out is because I am firmly against any large firm thinking they can take other people's property and do with it what they want just because they're a large firm. It seems to me this is what Google did. Do they think they're above the law? Sure seems like it!
I urge all authors to opt out of the Google Books settlement. I honestly have no idea why the Author's Guild agreed to settle in the first place. It stinks to high heaven. It is, in my opinion, NOT in the best interests of authors and their heirs and to allow one huge corporation to control the publication / display of books that belong to authors and their families is ridiculous!
A GREAT article on this by Gillian Spraggs begins with this:
"The proposed Google Book Settlement represents an attempt to use the machinery of a private settlement in a civil law case to overturn fundamental principles of national and international copyright law in the interests of Google Inc., a wealthy corporation."
She has also posted links to comments about the proposed settlement from lawyers, authors, publishers, and even John Steinbeck's estate HERE.
Below are the two emails I received from Google. Notice in the first one they state their program is designed to increase visibility for authors and publishers. Ha ha ha. The program is a possible future cash cow for Google! They're already making money on the books listed there via Google ads. In fact, one of my competitors is running an ad on the page featuring illegal copies of MY book text! So, Google is already hurting me in more ways than one!
GOOGLE'S RESPONSE TO ANGELA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR REMOVAL
-------- Original Message --------Subject: Re: [#372333757] otherDate: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:45:34 -0000From: Google Book Search Support [books-support@google.com]
Hello,
Thanks for your email. I understand that you have found your titledisplaying on Google Book Search. As you may know, Google Book Search is aprogram for content rights holders, such as publishers and authors, toincrease the visibility of their copyrighted materials by displaying themonline. Your publisher has an account with Google Book Search, andsubmitted your book to Google as part of this program.
If you have questions about why your book was added to the program, orwould like to request that it be removed from Google Book Search, Irecommend that you first contact your publisher directly.
Feel free to respond to this email if you have further questions about thedisplay of your book on Google.
Sincerely,
The Google Book Search Team
GOOGLE'S RESPONSE TO ANGELA'S SECOND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL
After I contacted them telling nobody, including my publisher, has the right to publish such a large chunk of my book, including the chapters written by other writers, online for free, this is what I received.
-------- Original Message --------Subject: Re: [#372333757] otherDate: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:54:51 -0000From: Google Book Search Support [books-support@google.com]
Hello Angela,
As stated in our previous message to you, the book you are referring tohas been made available to users by the publisher of the title. However,it is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that complywith the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the text of which can be foundat the U.S. Copyright Office website: http://lcWeb.loc.gov/copyright/) andother applicable intellectual property laws. In this case, this means thatif we receive proper notice of infringement, we will forward that noticeto the responsible publisher of the title in question.
To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a writtencommunication (by fax or regular mail, not by email) that sets forth theitems specified below. Please note that pursuant to that Act, you may beliable to the alleged infringer for damages (including costs andattorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that you own an item whenyou in fact do not. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether you have theright to request removal from our service, we suggest that you firstcontact an attorney.
To expedite our ability to process your request, please use the followingformat (including section numbers):
1. Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you believe hasbeen infringed upon. For example, "The copyrighted work at issue is "TouchNot This Cat" by Dudley Smith, published by Smith Publishing, ISBN#0123456789"
2. Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted worklisted in item #1 above. Identify the URL of the content within theGoogle Book Search program, such as. If the alleged infringement isspecific to a page within a book, you must include each applicable pagenumber.
3. Provide information reasonably sufficient to permit Google to contactyou (email address is preferred).
4. Provide information, if possible, sufficient to permit Google to notifythe publisher of the book that is allegedly infringing or that containsinfringing material (email address is preferred).
5. Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that useof the copyrighted materials as described above is not authorized by thecopyright owner, its agent, or the law."
6. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjuryconsistent with United States Code Title 17, Section 512, that theinformation in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyrightowner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive rightthat is allegedly infringed."
7. Sign the paper.
8. Send written communication to:
Google, Inc.Attn: Google Legal Support, Google Book Search DMCA Complaints1600 Amphitheatre ParkwayMountain View, CA 94043
OR fax to:
+1 (650) 887-1734, Attn: Google Legal Support, Google Book Search DMCAComplaints
Sincerely,
The Google Book Search Team
POSTSCRIPT: I also found chapters I contributed to another author's book posted on Google Books without my permission. I purposely did not give that author, nor his publisher, permission to publish my work online for free (because the content is from another book I still have on the market). Google violated my copyright by publishing that and the publisher in question immediately notified me that they would remove the entire book from Google Books.

The Audacity of Evil

I know I'm harping on that word again. But, what are you gonna do? Here is a link to an article in the Huffington Post entitled "The Audacity of the Google Author Settlement" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/the-audacity-of-the-googl_b_255490.html-- and no, it has nothing to do with Obama (I just like the Joker/Barack graphic) -- only, I do wonder why the National Writer's Union didn't write him instead of Al Gore . . . they're both writers, and Al may be shilling for Google, but Obama personally opting out of the Google Author Settlement would be huge news.

You may say the leader of the free world has more important things to do, but I beg to differ . . . especially with "Free" being the operative word. Free to me does not mean the ability for anyone with a big fat wallet to steal my work, but it means that I am free to create and control my own creations.

Funny, the Google Author Settlement has Plaintiffs lawyers acting like Defense lawyers and vise a versa. Didn't anyone learn right from wrong growing up? Or did they all learn the Golden Rule -- He who has the Gold make the Rules.

Deadline for Bitchin' Extended

The deadline for objections and Amicus (friend of the court -- yeah, I know ---hardy har har) briefs has been extended to Tuesday, September 8th.

This has to do with a scheduled maintenance of the online court filing system that will occur tonight through the weekend.

So anyway, even though you can't opt out and object (which doesn't make any sense) or oppose (which makes even less sense because once you opt out you are no longer a party to the suit, and plenty of entities like Amazon and Microsoft who are not a party to this suit are objecting and opposing) you can still right a letter with your grievances. I mean, why the heck not? Maybe it will just be read by a paralegal or law clerk, and thrown into a dead pile -- but writers write, and when their rights are stolen, they should write more.

There's that word again . . .

EVIL!!! Yep, that is the growing concensus about the Google Author Settlement. A group of Canandian writers has summed it up thusly --

Authors detect evil in Google's massive online library

"VANCOUVER — Facing a deadline on Friday, several Canadian authors are urging writers to reject a Google settlement offer for copyright infringement for producing digital copies of books.

"Google has just behaved as a thief," said Kim Goldberg, a Nanaimo-based author and part of an ad hoc group of six writers opposing the settlement.

"This is really Google redressing its months and months of pirating," Goldberg said. "I would say that raises the question, 'Can we trust them now to play fair?'"

The settlement stems from the Google Library Project, which involves digitizing books in several libraries.

Katherine Gordon, a Gabriola Island-based author and part of the ad hoc group, said the settlement is a one-sided grab by an untrustworthy, multi-billion-dollar corporation that hasn't properly notified authors.

"If I want to have my book scanned and sold via the Internet, my publisher is quite capable of doing it," Gordon said. "I don't want some major foreign corporation telling me they're doing it for me and it's for my own good."

Gordon, a former contract and business lawyer, said she scrutinized every word of the settlement. "If I were a lawyer advising a client I would say, 'Don't touch it with a 20-foot barge pole.'"

Hmmm . . . I guess they have longer poles up north, here in the states a ten foot pole is usually sufficient to not want to touch something with.

50,000,000 Opt Outs Can't Be Wrong

Okay, the Opt Outs are probably totalling about 5,000 right now, but if you include all of Germany (the Government of Germany officially filed an opposition, anyways . . .) then it is clear that Opting Out is the way to go -- all the cool kids are doing it!

Time's a wasting! Rock 'n Roll over to the settlement sight, and get all shook up.