Listmembers may be interested in a new article on the Google Book
settlement by Professor James Grimmelmann of New York Law School,
who was a panel member at the March 13 Columbia Law School Google
Book conference. See James Grimmelmann, "How to Fix the Google
Search Settlement," Journal of Internet Law, Apr. 2009, at 1,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann
The article suggests some of the ideas that the library
associations might advocate in their brief to the court, and in
possible submissions to the Justice Department and the FTC.
Here is a summary of Prof. Grimmelmann's article:
Professor Grimmelmann recommends in his new article that the
proposed Google Book settlement agreement be modified before
court approval, and that the U.S. Department of Justice and
Federal Trade Commission regulate the resulting transaction.
Grimmelmann recommends approval of the settlement agreement, but
only after several modifications. These include:
*striking the "most favored nation" clause (section 3.8(a) of the
settlement agreement, available at
http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/ ) that protects
Google's competitive position respecting orphan works;
*requiring the Book Rights Registry to offer future copyright
holders the same terms as provided under the settlement;
*mandating library and reader representation on the registry's
board;
*expressly authorizing the registry to negotiate with Google's
competitors in the digitization market;
*prohibiting Google from engaging in retail price discrimination
respecting digital books;
*incorporating express protections of reader privacy; and
*requiring free public access to the registry's database of
information respecting ownership of rights in the digitized
books, and to Google's database recording which digitized books
are available in print.
Grimmelmann also calls for imposition of an antitrust consent
decree on the registry and a grant of authority to the Justice
Department to monitor all registry contracts for potential
anticompetitive effect. Further, he recommends that the FTC
regulate Google to prevent price discrimination, privacy
breaches, and the imposition of onerous usage restrictions. Hat
tip to Chris Welch:
http://twitter.com/guppywon/statuses/1323802213
From liblicense-l
settlement by Professor James Grimmelmann of New York Law School,
who was a panel member at the March 13 Columbia Law School Google
Book conference. See James Grimmelmann, "How to Fix the Google
Search Settlement," Journal of Internet Law, Apr. 2009, at 1,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann
The article suggests some of the ideas that the library
associations might advocate in their brief to the court, and in
possible submissions to the Justice Department and the FTC.
Here is a summary of Prof. Grimmelmann's article:
Professor Grimmelmann recommends in his new article that the
proposed Google Book settlement agreement be modified before
court approval, and that the U.S. Department of Justice and
Federal Trade Commission regulate the resulting transaction.
Grimmelmann recommends approval of the settlement agreement, but
only after several modifications. These include:
*striking the "most favored nation" clause (section 3.8(a) of the
settlement agreement, available at
http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/ ) that protects
Google's competitive position respecting orphan works;
*requiring the Book Rights Registry to offer future copyright
holders the same terms as provided under the settlement;
*mandating library and reader representation on the registry's
board;
*expressly authorizing the registry to negotiate with Google's
competitors in the digitization market;
*prohibiting Google from engaging in retail price discrimination
respecting digital books;
*incorporating express protections of reader privacy; and
*requiring free public access to the registry's database of
information respecting ownership of rights in the digitized
books, and to Google's database recording which digitized books
are available in print.
Grimmelmann also calls for imposition of an antitrust consent
decree on the registry and a grant of authority to the Justice
Department to monitor all registry contracts for potential
anticompetitive effect. Further, he recommends that the FTC
regulate Google to prevent price discrimination, privacy
breaches, and the imposition of onerous usage restrictions. Hat
tip to Chris Welch:
http://twitter.com/guppywon/statuses/1323802213
From liblicense-l
KlausGraf - am Dienstag, 24. März 2009, 03:11 - Rubrik: English Corner
