More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
Google Book Settlement Revised – some say yes, some say no
November 16, 2009 | 9:13 am
|
By Paul Biba
The revised settlement is still dividing the industry. The Open Book Alliance is still dead set against it saying that it is a “set-piece designed to serve the private commercial interests of Google and its partners.” The Alliance is made up of Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, as well as librarians, legal scholars, authors and publishers.
In the UK, however, the Publishers Association, which previously had taken a neutral position, is now supporting the agreement as revised. Despite this, some members, including Hachette UK won’t go along and are still against the agreement.
No matter what the court decides I’m sure we are in for a series of appeals which may very will delay this for a couple of years. I would not even be surprised to see this whole thing eventually reach the US Supreme Court on the basis that this is not the proper set of facts for a class action.
You can find a comprehensive press review along with links to the actual documents at this Resource Shelf posting.
|
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
I agree. Unless the court system buys Google’s clever scheme to set opponents up to lack standing (“Don’t like it, just opt out.”), this dispute will be on appeal for several years. This is a good illustration of ‘Haste makes waste.”
I feel like a broken record saying this again, but the only sensible answer is a revision of Berne to take into account all the developments since it was last revised in 1979. The negotiating process would better serve the interest of all parties than these secret negotiations between private parties. And the result, coming with the long-established prestige of Berne, is much more likely to be accepted worldwide that something coming out of an obscure Manhattan courtroom.
Besides, I’ve read Berne and can make sense of almost all of it. I’m not sure even the lawyers involve fully understand the full meaning and implications of these two settlement drafts.
Google has thrived for two main reasons: first, they have seen the future and innovated; and second, they have given the world many useful products. Thus, Google is perceived as good, or at least “not evil” — a rare — perhaps impossible — feat, for a large corporation in these times.
Whether this revised settlement is fair or not fair, it has harmed the world’s perception of Google. It’s not too late to bring other groups into the process, such as the Open Book Alliance, and then re-revise the Google Book Settlement into a final form that restores our faith in Google’s generosity and public service.
Michael Pastore
50 Benefits of Ebooks