Fairness Hearing for Google Books Settlement

Fairness Hearing for Google Books Settlement



The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed a consolidated class action in 2005 after Google announced agreements with libraries to digitize books in the libraries’ collections. Google didn’t obtain copyright permissions before scanning the books.

The agreement is 179 pages with 16 attachments. Under the agreement Google Library Project is allowed to scan up to 20% of a book online. Google claim’s this with increase sales. The right’s holder’s permission is required for commercially available books. However, out-of –print books could be displayed without permission unless the rights holder requested removal from the data base.”Orphan works”, will be sold without permission or compensation. Google would pay 63 percent of all revenue from the commercial uses of the digitized book sales, online advertising, and institutional subscriptions to the online database. Google will pay to authors whose work has been scanned without permission at least $60.00 per book or $15.00 per insert. Google must create a not-for-profit Book Rights Registry that would compile a public database of rights holders and help locate those who are owed income.

Google will have an edge in the publishing industry. Google would receive significant and possible anticompetitive advantages. Google currently has 0% share in the book market. Microsoft, Amazon and the nonprofit Internet Archive have filed objections. The Justice Department had concerns on copyright infringement and antitrust issues. Many other persons have expressed concern over Google monopolistic control in the areas of out-of-print book sales, “orphan works”, and digitized book sales.

Marybeth Peters Register of Copyrights stated, “the settlement would encroach on the responsibility for copyright policy that traditionally been the domain of Congress.” Further, “it could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners with respect to their abilities to control new products and new markets.” Both of these arguments seem very weak, given all the issues involved in the proposed settlement.

The increase of availability of books has attracted library organizations, universities and the National Federation of the Blind.

The Art of Forgiveness

Ethics: The Art of Forgiveness


In this day and age of over-litigation, people are afraid to say, “ I am sorry” However, the act of taking responsibility and being sympathetic with another should be the norm, not the rare event. After experiencing a bad or sad event people need human compassion. I believe many lawsuits would be avoided if this practice was followed more often. Several states have enacted, “I’m sorry” laws covering areas such as medical malpractice situations, and in other states they apply such laws to al civil actions.
A universal standard apology will not get to the heart of the matter. For example, “Dear John, I am sorry my actions “MAY” have hurt you.” Even if the “may have hurt you” is replaced with , “. . . did hurt you”. Such an “apology” turns the matter back against the recipient, suggesting that the recipient is overly sensitive to the hurtful actions of the apologizer, and is, in effect, not an apology at all. A bad apology may be worst than none. The most effective apology is to simply and directly say, “I am sorry for (my actions that caused the hurt, pain or damages) that resulted in (your injury, hurt, pain or damage).” The next statement should set out what steps have been taken to prevent this type of action from reoccurrence. The closing statement should be a statement that unites the forgiver and the forgiven.
In spite of today’s multi-media options, don’t forward your apology by fax, e-mail or phone text. Therefore, use stationery to handwrite your note, or make a phone call to the person, not his voicemail, or better yet, tell him in person.