U.S. Government blasts Google

doreenjoy · 09-10-2009, 03:24 PM

http://www.publishersweekly.com/arti...d&source=title

Quote:

In testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee this morning, Marybeth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights, in her first detailed comments on the subject, blasted the Google Book Search Settlement as “fundamentally at odds with the law.” In a blistering assessment of the deal, Peters told lawmakers that the settlement is in essence a compulsory license that would give Google the ability to engage in activities, such as text display and sale of downloads, that are “indisputable acts of copyright infringement.”

More at the link.

zelda_pinwheel · 09-10-2009, 03:27 PM

well, since the "law" (copyright law, that is) is an indisputable act of pillage of the public domain and is fundamentally at odds with the spirit in which copyright was created, i can't say i'm too bothered here personally.

let's just hope the government doesn't go and do something... ahem, "stupid", to jeopardise this initiative (however flawed, i still think it's a good thing overall). sheesh.

Greg Anos · 09-10-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

well, since the "law" (copyright law, that is) is an indisputable act of pillage of the public domain and is fundamentally at odds with the spirit in which copyright was created, i can't say i'm too bothered here personally.

let's just hope the government doesn't go and do something... ahem, "stupid", to jeopardise this initiative (however flawed, i still think it's a good thing overall). sheesh.

Government = Stupid (99 out of 100 times)...

US Government - Of the money, By the money, and For the Money. (and unlike Texas government, it <not> competitively priced...)

Dave_S · 09-10-2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

In a blistering assessment of the deal, Peters told lawmakers that the settlement is in essence a compulsory license that would give Google the ability to engage in activities, such as text display and sale of downloads, that are “indisputable acts of copyright infringement.”

That quote makes Peters sound like a bureaucrat defending it's turf since the quote seems to put an inflammatory twist on the facts in favor of the bureaucracy. I wonder if the judge will see through that or not?

doreenjoy · 09-10-2009, 03:46 PM

The real issue, according to the full article, is that a court may not have the right to legislate the decision if it's contrary to acts of congress.

Or something along those lines. I haven't made time to discuss it with a constitutional lawyer today.

fugazied · 09-10-2009, 06:49 PM

Google will run into conflict with copyright owners frequently because Google's end goal is to supply the world's information online. They want people to be able to search everything, have access to everything. So along the way copyright owners may get very angry if their toes are stepped on!

carlobee · 09-10-2009, 09:50 PM

hmmmm. tsk3. the government i think makes a lot of conflict.

lilac_jive · 09-10-2009, 09:51 PM

Google should just cut to the chase and just replace the US goverment. I think we'll all be happier that way

pilotbob · 09-10-2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

Google should just cut to the chase and just replace the US goverment. I think we'll all be happier that way

Yes, I would sign up for a Google heathcare plan. It would probably be in beta for 4 or 5 years though.

BOb

reader22 · 09-11-2009, 07:29 AM

Dear Author quoted part of the testimony

Quote:

We realized that the settlement was not really a settlement at all, in as much as settlements resolve acts that have happened in the past and were at issue in the underlying infringement suits. Instead, the so-called settlement would create mechanisms by which Google could continue to scan with impunity, well into the future, and to our great surprise, create yet additional commercial products without the prior consent of rights holders. For example, the settlement allows Google to reproduce, display and distribute the books of copyright owners without prior consent, provided Google and the plaintiffs deem the works to be “out-of-print” through a definition negotiated by them for purposes of the settlement documents

Full testimony can be found here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/...ters090910.pdf
I think this is the problem that most copyright holders have with the settlement.

acidzebra · 09-11-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Yes, I would sign up for a Google heathcare plan. It would probably be in beta for 4 or 5 years though.

True, but on the first day of beta it would already be better than all the other plans.

ahi · 09-11-2009, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reader22

Dear Author quoted part of the testimony

Full testimony can be found here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/...ters090910.pdf
I think this is the problem that most copyright holders have with the settlement.

Google wants to distribute books to a wider audience and compensate the rights-holders for each sale?!

HOW

.

DARE

.

THEY

.

!!!

Who are you? · 09-11-2009, 09:24 AM

No, they do NOT want to compensate the rights holders. They compensate a group of people who have no rights at all to the books.

Dave_S · 09-11-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Who are you?

No, they do NOT want to compensate the rights holders. They compensate a group of people who have no rights at all to the books.

What is your inside source information concerning what Google "wants" ?

This is what Google says it wants:

Quote:

Compensation to Authors and Publishers and Control Over Access to Their Works -- Distributing payments earned from online access provided by Google and, prospectively, from similar programs that may be established by other providers, through a newly created independent, not-for-profit Book Rights Registry. The Book Rights Registry will locate rightsholders, collect and maintain accurate rightsholder information, and provide a way for rightsholders to request inclusion in or exclusion from the project.

http://books.google.com/googlebooks/...nt/faq.html#q2

Do you have factual information that contradicts that statement or are you implying that the centralized registry is in fact a scam?

ahi · 09-11-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Do you have factual information that contradicts that statement or are you implying that the centralized registry is in fact a scam?

Of course he doesn't.

It might be a ludicrous idea--but it's not a scam. Multi-million dollar business do not need to pettily break laws when they can just as easily direct legislation.

- Ahi

09-10-2009, 03:24 PM	#1
doreenjoy 01000100 01001010 Posts: 1,889 Karma: 2400000 Join Date: Mar 2009 Device: Polyamorous	U.S. Government blasts Google http://www.publishersweekly.com/arti...d&source=title Quote: In testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee this morning, Marybeth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights, in her first detailed comments on the subject, blasted the Google Book Search Settlement as “fundamentally at odds with the law.” In a blistering assessment of the deal, Peters told lawmakers that the settlement is in essence a compulsory license that would give Google the ability to engage in activities, such as text display and sale of downloads, that are “indisputable acts of copyright infringement.” More at the link.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Litigious Vampire Sues Government	Jameswudz	Lounge	59	06-04-2010 04:14 PM
US Government stumbles over PDF document	Colin Dunstan	Lounge	7	01-12-2010 02:37 AM
The commonwealth and government of Venice	ahi	Reading Recommendations	4	10-17-2009 10:38 AM
A Collection of English-Spanish Glossaries from the U.S. Government	Nate the great	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	0	10-05-2009 10:15 PM
Government-run Health Care	GlennD	Lounge	17	07-04-2009 08:35 AM

09-10-2009, 03:27 PM	#2
zelda_pinwheel zeldinha zippy zeldissima Posts: 27,827 Karma: 921169 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Paris, France Device: eb1150 & is that a nook in her pocket, or she just happy to see you?	well, since the "law" (copyright law, that is) is an indisputable act of pillage of the public domain and is fundamentally at odds with the spirit in which copyright was created, i can't say i'm too bothered here personally. let's just hope the government doesn't go and do something... ahem, "stupid", to jeopardise this initiative (however flawed, i still think it's a good thing overall). sheesh.

09-10-2009, 03:46 PM	#5
doreenjoy 01000100 01001010 Posts: 1,889 Karma: 2400000 Join Date: Mar 2009 Device: Polyamorous	The real issue, according to the full article, is that a court may not have the right to legislate the decision if it's contrary to acts of congress. Or something along those lines. I haven't made time to discuss it with a constitutional lawyer today.

09-10-2009, 06:49 PM	#6
fugazied Wizard Posts: 1,305 Karma: 1958 Join Date: Jan 2009 Device: iPod Touch	Google will run into conflict with copyright owners frequently because Google's end goal is to supply the world's information online. They want people to be able to search everything, have access to everything. So along the way copyright owners may get very angry if their toes are stepped on!

09-10-2009, 09:50 PM	#7
carlobee Fanatic Posts: 535 Karma: 972 Join Date: Jul 2009 Device: The new iPad	hmmmm. tsk3. the government i think makes a lot of conflict.

09-10-2009, 09:51 PM	#8
lilac_jive Grand Sorcerer Posts: 5,870 Karma: 27376 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Device: PRS-505	Google should just cut to the chase and just replace the US goverment. I think we'll all be happier that way

09-11-2009, 09:24 AM	#13
Who are you? Groupie Posts: 184 Karma: 300001 Join Date: May 2009 Device: 505	No, they do NOT want to compensate the rights holders. They compensate a group of people who have no rights at all to the books.