LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  May 2009

CODE4LIB May 2009

Subject:

Re: A Book Grab by Google

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 20 May 2009 17:14:38 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

Eric, can you cite a section for this? Because I haven't seen this 
interpretation elsewhere, and I don't read it in the section you cite, 
which doesn't seem to me to mention orphan works. I will point to 
Grimmelmann:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=james_grimmelmann*
pp 10-11.

Grimmelmann thinks that the monopoly on orphan works is what will give 
Google the edge that keeps away competition, but he doesn't interpret 
the MFN clause as relating only to orphan works.

kc
*
Eric Hellman wrote:
> I think one thing in Karen's comment is incorrect. As far as I can 
> tell, the 'most favored nation' clause does NOT apply in the situation 
> that Karen assumes it "would be most likely to come into play". MFN 
> appears to apply only if the registry licenses orphan works. It's an 
> odd provision if you assume that the registry can't license orphan 
> works; commentators such as Randy Picker have also commented on this 
> oddness; as Karen mentions, it could be meant to come into play if 
> orphan works legislation is enacted. You can examine the legalese 
> yourself at
> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-google-really-get-orphan-monopoly.html 
>
>
> Eric
>
> On May 20, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>> Eric Hellman wrote:
>>> Should note that Google could be paying $100,000,000+ to rights 
>>> holders without getting ANYTHING in return in the absence of a 
>>> settlement- that's what the copyright attorneys I've talked to 
>>> believe would have been the ruling by the court had the suit gone to 
>>> trial. And if that happened libraries would get nothing, not even 
>>> the scans. I don't see how bashing Google (which is NOT what the 
>>> library association briefs are doing, btw) for gaps in US and 
>>> international Copyright Law(orphan works, for example) will end up 
>>> helping libraries.
>>>
>>> My blog at http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ is no longer secret.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>> Another important note is that the settlement is the collective 
>> desires of the entities representing rights holders (Author's Guild 
>> and Assn Am. Publishers) and Google. Because the settlement talks 
>> were done under NDA, we can only guess at which aspects of the 
>> settlement were proposed/championed by which participants. From the 
>> little bit that has been revealed by folks who were there (because 
>> they are still under NDA) the AAP had strong demands and was probably 
>> equal to Google, if not more so, in terms of its ability to carve out 
>> what it felt was the best deal. The settlement is a compromise, with 
>> everyone getting *some* of what they wanted, and no one getting *all*.
>>
>> In answer to the question you pose on your blog: "The key question is 
>> this: Would the Book Rights Registry have the ability to authorize a 
>> Google competitor to copy and use "Orphan works"?" The legal folks 
>> I've heard speak about this say that the answer is "no." Only the 
>> court can authorize the copying and use of Orphan works outside of 
>> what copyright law already states, and this settlement waives 
>> liability under the law only for Google. The registry cannot change 
>> the legal status of Orphan works under the copyright law in a way 
>> that would permit copying of them as in-copyright works. The registry 
>> sets prices, so if someone else found a way to copy Orphan works 
>> legally (say, if we got orphan works legislation), the registry might 
>> be used by them as the middle-man for payments.
>>
>> Most likely the registry would be used for non-Orphan works, because 
>> the rights holder could make a deal with the registry to give 
>> permission for copying, with $$ going to the registry and on to the 
>> rights holder. This is exactly what the Copyright Clearance Center 
>> does -- it serves as a central licensing agency for copyright 
>> holders. I assume that this is the area where the 'most favored 
>> nation' clause would be most likely to come into play -- basically, 
>> if Google Books is successful, rights holders might want to make 
>> deals with other entities for similar product lines.
>>
>> Whether or not the suit itself would have gone against Google is a 
>> matter of debate. I've heard it both ways. Google folks state (and 
>> because they say this publicly it has to be considered at least 
>> partially a PR statement) that the lawsuit would have gone on for 
>> years (true), and they didn't want to wait that long to be able to 
>> know what they could and could not do with this project. That makes 
>> sense, but it also is possible that they weren't as sure that they'd 
>> win as they'd stated when they started the project.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> -- 
>> -----------------------------------
>> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
>> [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
>> ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
>> fx.: 510-848-3913
>> mo.: 510-435-8234
>> ------------------------------------
>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager