Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Another article discussing the Google Book Search deal from The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required). The article points out that some of the issues at stake in the deal are different for academic authors than for published authors: "A professional writer and an academic author often have different notions about when and how to make work available. One counts on revenue from book sales; the other cares more about spreading ideas."
Over the weekend, on a mailing list associated with new media transformations, there emerged a debate on the inherent utility of Google Book Search (GBS). Involving Paul Duguid of the Information School at UC Berkeley, Danny Sullivan from Search Engine Land, Tim O’Reilly from O’Reilly Media, and Donald Waters of the The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (as well as a few others not excerpted here), the debate drew out many of the tensions of GBS.
The Justice Department has begun an inquiry into the antitrust implications of Google’s settlement with authors and publishers over its Google Book Search service, two people briefed on the matter said Tuesday.
Lawyers for the Justice Department have been in conversations in recent weeks with various groups opposed to the settlement, including the Internet Archive and Consumer Watchdog. More recently, Justice Department lawyers notified the parties to the settlement, including Google, and representatives for the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild, that they were looking into various antitrust issues related to the far-reaching agreement.
Publishers Weekly reports: A federal judge overseeing the approval process for the Google Book Search settlement has rejected an attempt by the Internet Archive (IA) to intervene in the action. In a short ruling released today, Judge Dennis Chin wrote that he construed the IA’s letter to the court, filed last week, as “a motion to intervene,” and denied it. “The proposed interveners are, however, free to file objections to the proposed settlement.” Objections and comments must be filed by May 5.
The IA had asked the court to alter the proposed settlement to give other companies that have scanned printed books the same protections regarding orphan works that would be granted to Google under the terms of the settlement. The IA had said it does not want to file an amicus brief, also known as a friend of the court brief, as other parties said they intend to do, and it believes “there are no existing parties in the case that could adequately represent the Archive’s interests, or the interest of other Internet content providers.”
My sincere apologies for the tardiness on this episode. We had a family issue come up that necessitated traveling and the chaos that goes with it, so I'm just now getting it online.
This time around, The Faceless Historian ushers you down the aisle of history with some key stops in (THIS... IS...) Sparta(!). Then he provides a dash of poetry and weird books before introducing you to a daughter and a unicycling scientist. Where does it end? Well, I suppose you could use Google to find out.
Sometimes, you don't even know if there is barbarian At The Gates.13:24 minutes (8 MB)
In This Issue:
Letter from the Editor
Google Book Search
Best of the Inside Google Book Search Blog - the last 6 months:
Your Library, My Library
Go, go, Book Search gadgets
Around the world in 80 pages (give or take a few)
University of Virginia opens exhibit on Google Book Search
Book Search Back to School Edition
Doodle 4 Google
Scalpel, check. Book search, check.
With a May 5 deadline for filing objections to the Google books settlement looming, opposition to and criticism of the settlement continues to cement.
I recently wrote about concerns among copyright and antitrust scholars and others that the settlement would grant Google a monopoly over millions of so-called orphan books, which are out of print and whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. I later gave more details of where the opposition was coming from.
Now some of the opposition is starting to jell. The Internet Archive, which is currently working to match Google’s effort to digitize millions of books from major libraries, has filed a motion to intervene in the case. The Internet Archive argues that the settlement gives Google — and Google alone — immunity from liability for copyright infringement for scanning and displaying orphan books. Without similar immunity, “the Archive would be unable to provide some of these same services due to the uncertain legal issues surrounding orphan books.” The filing notes that the parties in the suit — Google, the Authors Guild and major publishers — plan to oppose the Archive’s proposed intervention.
Microsoft, which lost an anti-trust case of its own in the '90s, has been lobbying to get the government to constrain Google. The Softies already can claim some part in urging the government to decide to challenge a Google-Yahoo ad partnership project last year (which became moot when Google bailed on the plan). But the book settlement is a new battleground.
The Court permits objections until May 5, and will conduct a hearing on June 11.
A leftover from April 1.
CADIE is a Cognitive Autoheuristic Distributed-Intelligence Entity and she was born last night at 11:59:59. She is a rapidly learning AI program who has her own web page at http://cadiesingularity.blogspot.com/.
Visit CADIE early and often throughout the day as she is growing and maturing at a an astounding rate. But Google documentation says CADIE may have some "bugs" so who knows how she might turn out as she gets too big for her britches. My guess is that we'll see some terrifying and hilarious results!
And check her out on YouTube: http://youtube.com/cadiesingularity.
Right now, CADIE <3 Pandas! So stop by and say Hello, or CADIE will destroy you.