[A2k] NYT: Top Copyright Official Attacks Google Book Settlement

[Judit Rius Sanjuan]

Find below a NYT article about Marybeth Peters Statement today before
the Committee on the Judiciary /  US House of Representatives on the
google book settlement.

The full statement is available here: http://bit.ly/Cijau


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/technology/internet/11books.html?_r=3D1

September 11, 2009
Top Copyright Official Attacks Google Book Settlement
By MIGUEL HELFT
SAN FRANCISCO =97 The nation=92s top copyright official made a blistering
attack Thursday on a controversial legal settlement that would let
Google create a huge online library and bookstore.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Marybeth Peters, the
United States register of copyrights, said the settlement between
Google and groups representing authors and publishers amounted to an
end-run around copyright law that would wrest control of books from
authors and other right holders.

Ms. Peters, the first government official to address the settlement in
detail, said it would allow Google to profit from the work of others
without prior consent and that it could put =93diplomatic stress=94 on the
United States because it affected foreign authors whose rights are
protected by international treaties.

But David Drummond, Google=92s chief legal officer, who also testified
at the hearing, defended the agreement saying it let authors retain
control of their books and would expand access to millions of out-of-
print books that are largely hidden in libraries.

In a concession that appears intended to allay complaints that the
class-action settlement would grant Google quasi-exclusive rights to
profit from millions of books, Mr. Drummond said that Google would
allow rivals like Amazon or Barnes & Noble to sell online digital
copies of out-of-print books that Google has scanned from libraries.

The $125 million settlement, which is subject to court approval, would
resolve suits filed in 2005 by the Authors Guild and the Association
of American Publishers against Google over its plan to digitize
millions of books from libraries without approval from copyright
holders. The settlement would protect Google from liability and would
establish a registry administered by authors and publishers. In
concert with Google, the registry would sell access to those books to
individuals and libraries. The revenue would be split among Google,
authors and publishers.

Ms. Peters said that in granting something like a =93compulsory
license,=94 a requirement that rights owners license works to others,
the settlement essentially usurped the authority of Congress and
skirted deliberations.

=93In essence, the proposed settlement would give Google a license to
infringe first and ask questions later, under the imprimatur of the
court,=94 Ms. Peters wrote in her prepared testimony.

Her opinion is important because it could be reflected in a brief
expected from the Department of Justice this month.

The department=92s antitrust division is investigating the deal for its
effect on competition. The department has also been asked by other
government agencies, including the Copyright Office, to represent
their views in court, people with knowledge of those requests said.
The government has until Sept. 18 to make a filing in the case, which
is being reviewed by Judge Denny Chin of the Federal District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Drummond said that he found the objections of the Copyright Office
unfounded.

=93We think the settlement is legal, and we think it is structured well
within the guidelines of what you can do in a class action
settlement,=94 he said. =93It certainly it is not usurping Congress=92s
authority to do whatever it wants.=94

And he said that it was inappropriate to call the agreement a
=93compulsory license,=94 because authors can ask Google at any time to
remove book their books from the database.

Some members of the Judiciary Committee also were skeptical of Ms.
Peters=92 arguments and appeared to side with Google.

=93At any time you can order Google to remove your material and tell
them not to sell it,=94 Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California, said in
an interview. =93All of the rights are in the hands of the rights
holders.=94

At the hearing, Mr. Drummond said that to ensure that the market for
digital books remains competitive, Google would allow other retailers
to sell access to out-of-print books that Google scanned from
libraries. In doing so, Google is trying to address concerns that it
would be the only company with the license to profit from millions of
out-of-print books, known as orphan works, whose authors are unknown
or cannot be found.

Under the program, Google should give the majority of its revenue to
the affiliated retailer, retaining only a small slice of it, Mr.
Drummond said in the interview.

=93If people really want to get access to orphan books that we have,
they can do it,=94 Mr. Drummond said. Mr. Drummond also said that Google
was thinking about how to make those books available to others in
bulk, in case any were interested in selling subscriptions to libraries.

Amazon, which also testified at the hearing in opposition to the
agreement, referred questions about Google=92s concession on orphan
works, to the Open Book Alliance, a coalition that opposes the
settlement and counts Amazon as a member.

=93This doesn=92t fundamentally change any aspect of the settlement in a
way that would address the antitcompetitive concerns that we have
raised,=94 said Peter Brantley, co-founder of the Open Book Alliance.


Judit Rius Sanjuan
Attorney
Knowledge Ecology International / Essential Information
www.keionline.org / www.cptech.org
Phone: +1.202 332 2670, ext 18