The Google Book Settlement: Links, Continued

The US travel expert and author Edward Hasbrouck, co-chair of the National Writers Union book division, has posted a very valuable analysis of the Google Book Settlement and the choices facing authors.

He has also posted a useful set of links to web pages, blogs and documents on the settlement.

He has some interesting things to say about Michael J. Boni, chief legal counsel for the Authors Guild. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Google has undertaken, if the settlement goes through, to pay the lawyers for the Authors Guild $30 million.

The author Kathleen Rowland has written to the court to object to the payment as excessive. She has asked the court to ascertain 'how this attorneys' fee provision was negotiated' and to satisfy itself there was 'no … collusion' involved.

Among the other letters to the court is one from the Spectrum Literary Agency dated 5 May, recording the opt-outs of a number of sci-fi and fantasy authors whom they represent, including Lois McMaster Bujold, Mike Resnick, Larry Niven, David Eddings, and the Robert A. Heinlein Estate.

The Spectrum Agency states in its letter: 'We reject Google's willful misinterpretation of "fair use" in copyright law to mask outright piracy.' Further on it notes: 'Google's one-size-fits-all opt-out forms can only lead to confusion and error. Depending on the work, the author may control all rights, or have licensed print rights to a publisher (though sometimes with approval of sublicense deals) but the author may control electronic and foreign rights.' Absolutely. And in such cases the Google Book Settlement agreement has no business allocating payments to the publisher.

One of the best places on the web to keep up with informed commentary on the Google Book Settlement is James Grimmelmann's blog The Laboratorium. Tonight he has just posted a long analysis of Scott E. Gant's Objection to the settlement. Professor Grimmelmann wants to find a way 'fix' the settlement, in what he sees as the public interest - that's the US public, of course. He is concerned about the 'orphan works' issue. Mr Gant wants the pseudo-contract element in the settlement agreement declared out of order. I want to see Scott Gant prevail: but I very much appreciate James Grimmelmann's willingness to share his knowledge and facilitate study and debate.

He has some interesting older posts on Harry Potter, too.

The Google Book Settlement: Links, Continued

The US travel expert and author Edward Hasbrouck, co-chair of the National Writers Union book division, has posted a very valuable analysis of the Google Book Settlement and the choices facing authors.

He has also posted a useful set of links to web pages, blogs and documents on the settlement.

He has some interesting things to say about Michael J. Boni, chief legal counsel for the Authors Guild. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Google has undertaken, if the settlement goes through, to pay the lawyers for the Authors Guild $30 million.

The author Kathleen Rowland has written to the court to object to the payment as excessive. She has asked the court to ascertain 'how this attorneys' fee provision was negotiated' and to satisfy itself there was 'no … collusion' involved.

Among the other letters to the court is one from the Spectrum Literary Agency dated 5 May, recording the opt-outs of a number of sci-fi and fantasy authors whom they represent, including Lois McMaster Bujold, Mike Resnick, Larry Niven, David Eddings, and the Robert A. Heinlein Estate.

The Spectrum Agency states in its letter: 'We reject Google's willful misinterpretation of "fair use" in copyright law to mask outright piracy.' Further on it notes: 'Google's one-size-fits-all opt-out forms can only lead to confusion and error. Depending on the work, the author may control all rights, or have licensed print rights to a publisher (though sometimes with approval of sublicense deals) but the author may control electronic and foreign rights.' Absolutely. And in such cases the Google Book Settlement agreement has no business allocating payments to the publisher.

One of the best places on the web to keep up with informed commentary on the Google Book Settlement is James Grimmelmann's blog The Laboratorium. Tonight he has just posted a long analysis of Scott E. Gant's Objection to the settlement. Professor Grimmelmann wants to find a way 'fix' the settlement, in what he sees as the public interest - that's the US public, of course. He is concerned about the 'orphan works' issue. Mr Gant wants the pseudo-contract element in the settlement agreement declared out of order. I want to see Scott Gant prevail: but I very much appreciate James Grimmelmann's willingness to share his knowledge and facilitate study and debate.

He has some interesting older posts on Harry Potter, too.