<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Digital Daily &#187; Google Books</title>
	<atom:link href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/tag/google-books/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com</link>
	<description>by John Paczkowski</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:37:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Google Books Settlement Proceedings to Drag on Until Mid-February</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091120/google-books-settlement-proceedings-to-drag-on-until-mid-february/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091120/google-books-settlement-proceedings-to-drag-on-until-mid-february/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:53:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[approval. Settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Danny Chin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital library]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Book Search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Book Alliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preliminary approval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Southern District of New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=29536</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The latest revision of the Google Books settlement has been granted preliminary approval by a New York district judge, though it will be some time before that approval is finalized--if it is finalized. Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York said Thursday that he will hold a hearing Feb. 18 on the new agreement, which will restore access to millions of out-of-print books, but may also one day give the company a monopoly on the largest digital library in the world.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/11/images7.jpeg" alt="images" title="images" width="104" height="83" class="alignright size-full wp-image-29540" />The latest revision of the Google Books settlement has been granted preliminary approval by a New York district judge, though it will be some time before approval is finalized&#8211;if it is finalized. Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York said Thursday that he will hold a hearing Feb. 18 on the new agreement, which will restore access to millions of out-of-print books, but may also one day give the company a monopoly on the largest digital library in the world.</p>
<p>Filed last Friday, the <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091116/googlebooks/">latest version of the settlement is more limited in scope</a>, but has still drawn the ire of critics, who claim it remains rife with &#8220;anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.&#8221;</p>
<p>Chin evidently disagrees, and Google (GOOG) is obviously quite pleased that he has done so. &#8220;The preliminary approval order sends a positive initial message; this agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form,&#8221; the company said in a statement.</p>
<p>&#8220;We remain hopeful that the agreement will receive final approval from the court,&#8221; Google continues, &#8220;and will realize the goal of significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web.&#8221;</p>
<p>In a statement of its own, the Open Books Alliance, one of the settlement’s harshest critics, warned Google not to get too, too hopeful. &#8220;Today, in an expected procedural move, Judge Denny Chin granted preliminary approval to the revised Settlement of Google&#8217;s copyright infringement lawsuit,” the group said. </p>
<p>&#8220;This is not a surprising development and is not any indication that the court will or will not accept the terms of Settlement 2.0,&#8221; the Alliance warned. &#8220;The same procedural preliminary approval was given to Settlement 1.0, and now sets up a court process that will allow those opposed to the revised settlement to let their objections known to the court. The U.S. Department of Justice has until February 4th to weigh in with the court, as their investigation into the matter continues.&#8221;</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091120/google-books-settlement-proceedings-to-drag-on-until-mid-february/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google's Chrome OS: "It Just Works"</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091119/a-first-look-at-googles-chrome-os-on-thursday/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091119/a-first-look-at-googles-chrome-os-on-thursday/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:51:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mobile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adobe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AdWords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Android]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[API]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ARM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battery life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[browser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caching]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cloud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cryptographic signature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[desktop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[display]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-reader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Extensions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firmware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Explorer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Javascript]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kernel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keyboard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[launch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matthew Papakipos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[netbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Orleans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[operating system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Panels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photoshop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[platform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Q&A]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sergey Brin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Silverlight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smartphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Ballmer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sundar Pichai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[user interface]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virtualization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[W3C]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wi-Fi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Windows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Worldwide Partner Conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[X86]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YouTube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=29252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Speaking at Microsoft’s Worldwide Partner Conference in New Orleans this past July, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said of Google’s forthcoming Chrome OS, "Who knows what this thing is?” Today, he found out. The operating system, a direct challenge to Microsoft Windows, was on display at a media gathering at the company’s HQ this morning, and in the words of Sundar Pichai, Google's vice president of product management, it is intended to make computing a "delightful" experience.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/11/photo-150x150.jpg" alt="photo" title="photo" width="150" height="150" class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-29388" /></p>
<p>Speaking at Microsoft’s Worldwide Partner Conference in New Orleans this past July, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said of Google’s forthcoming Chrome OS, <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-microsofts-microsofts-ballmer-on-google-chrome-os-who-knows-what-this-t/">&#8220;Who knows what this thing is?&#8221;</a></p>
<p>Today, he found out. The operating system, a direct challenge to Microsoft Windows, was on display at a media gathering at the Google HQ this morning.</p>
<p>Sundar Pichai, vice president of product management, and Matthew Papakipos, engineering director for Google Chrome OS, presided over the event, which the company described as a &#8220;technical announcement.&#8221;</p>
<p>That meant that Google (GOOG) was not releasing a beta of the operating system this week, as had been rumored.</p>
<p>That said, it was an overview of Chrome, as well as Google’s plans for its launch in 2010, so let the Chrome OS liveblogging begin:</p>
<ul>
<li>
There will be no beta today. Pichai says Google is still a year away from an official launch. However, the company is making the code available today.
</li>
<li>
Pichai says that a year after launch, the Chrome browser has some 40 millions users. He boasts about the browser&#8217;s speed, noting that it handles Javascript 39 times faster than Microsoft&#8217;s (MSFT) Internet Explorer. There will be three more big Chrome announcements sometime in the future: Chrome for Mac, Chrome for Linux and the debut of Chrome Extensions.
</li>
<li>
Google&#8217;s goal is to ensure that Web applications function as well as desktop apps. Pichai says that the company is figuring out a way for Web apps to safely take advantage of the operating system in the way desktop apps do. A few examples: Graphics, video/audio applications, real-time communication, notification and local storage.</p>
<p>&#8220;By 2010 we expect to have all these things built into Chrome,&#8221; Pichai adds.
</li>
<li>
The advent of Chrome coincides with a perfect storm of converging trends, Pichai says, noting the tremendous popularity of netbooks during the recession, the growing acceptance of cloud apps and the rapid innovation in mobile devices. Smartphones are becoming more like laptops, Pichai adds, and laptops are becoming more like smartphones. Is there a better level of computing available for these devices?</p>
<p>There is, according to Pichai, and Google believes it is Chrome OS.
</li>
<li>
Among Chrome OS&#8217;s advantages, Pichai says: Speed, simplicity and security. Every application will be a Web application. There will be <em>no</em> desktop apps. Chrome OS is essentially a browser with a few modifications. All data in the Chrome OS resides in the cloud. Pichai: &#8220;We want all of personal computing to work that way&#8230;.If I lose my Chrome machine, I should be able to go out, buy a new [one] and re-create my previous computing experience easily.&#8221;</p>
<p>Chrome OS will run completely inside the browser security model, he adds, noting that security is one of Google&#8217;s top priorities along with speed. &#8220;Turning on a PC should be like turning on your TV,&#8221; he says.
</li>
<li>
Chrome OS is very similar in appearance to the Chrome browser. &#8220;Chrome OS is Chrome,&#8221; says Pichai. Google made it look like a browser, because the browser is familiar.
</li>
<li>
And indeed, Chrome OS does look quite a bit like a browser. Multiple apps load into tabs, for example. It also features &#8220;Panels,&#8221; which Pichai describes as persistent lightweight windows. &#8220;All Chrome data resides in the cloud. Anything you put in the machine is immediately available to you anywhere.&#8221;
</li>
<li>
As netbooks become more advanced and battery life improves, they will evolve into entertainment devices, says Pichai, who notes that via Google Books, a netbook can become an e-reader, and, through YouTube, a video device.
</li>
<li>
A quick demo of the user interface, which seems very simple and intuitive. &#8220;It just works,&#8221; says Pichai in an unintentional nod to Apple (AAPL).</p>
<p>An interesting remark: Anyone who writes an app for the Web has written an app for Chrome, says Pichai, joking that Microsoft is already developing for it.
</li>
<li>
Speed, simplicity and security, says Pichai. We&#8217;re trying to make the computing experience delightful.</li>
<p>With that, Pichai hands the stage over to Engineering Director Matt Papakipos.</p>
<li>
Papakipos, too, offers the &#8220;we want to make computing delightful&#8221; sound byte and notes once again that turning on the PC should be like turning on the TV.
</li>
<li>Chrome OS eliminates the bootloader, auto-launching the browser. The OS also auto-updates itself, making sure that it&#8217;s always current with security patches, etc. Everything from the firmware to the kernel is secured with a cryptographic signature to ensure a secure boot. In the event malware is detected, the system repairs itself automatically.
</li>
<li>
The basic application security protocol for current operating systems allows apps the same privileges as the user. This presents obvious security issues. Whenever you install a new app, you&#8217;re taking a risk, says Papakipos.</p>
<p>But Web applications like those that Chrome OS use, are different. They are Web apps, so they don&#8217;t have system-level privileges. Additionally, all apps run in secured sandboxes that are separate from one other and from the OS. Finally, all apps must be signed and verified before each use.
</li>
<li>
In terms of file systems, Chrome&#8217;s is locked down. It&#8217;s a read-only root-file system, obviously quite different from other operating systems. All user data are encrypted and synched to the cloud. Essentially, Google uses the PC for caching. Again, if you should lose your machine, you buy a new one, fire it up and it synchs with the cloud, restoring your previous computing experience.
</li>
<li>
How will Google bring Chrome OS to market? The company is working with vendors to specify reference hardware. You cannot download and install Chrome on just any device, you will have to purchase a Chrome device. Google is looking at a launch window of late 2010, before the holidays.
</li>
<li>
Google sounds very concerned about the end-user Chrome OS experience. Pichai says the company wants to ensure that the displays, keyboard, etc., on the netbooks that run Chrome are robust and easy to use.
</li>
<li>
Pichai wraps things up, but before the Q&#038;A, we&#8217;re shown a short explanatory video. &#8220;The first thing I want to do when I fire up my computer is browse the Internet&#8230;.If there isn&#8217;t any Internet, I might not even use my computer&#8230;.What if when you pressed on, your PC turned on, what if your operating system was more like a Web browser&#8230;what if it <em>was</em> a browser?&#8230;Chrome OS is a totally rethought computer that lets you focus on the Internet, which is what most of use our computers for these days anyway.&#8221;
</li>
<p><b>Q&#038;A</b> </p>
<p>At this point, Pichai opens the event to questions:</p>
<p class="question"><em>If you’re specifying hardware components, do you must have an idea of what they’ll cost?</em></p>
<p>A: We expect Chrome netbooks to be in the price range of what people have come to expect&#8230;.We are not specifying a price target. Price will be determined at the OEM level.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Will the APIs support W3C standards?</em></p>
<p>A: We&#8217;re working very closely with the W3C to standardize as much as we can&#8230;.In general, we want to see everything standardized across multiple browsers.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Will there be an application store?</em></p>
<p>A: The Web offers hundreds of millions of applications. Our job is to make people aware of them.</p>
<p class="question"><em>What about desktop applications that are not available on the Web?</em></p>
<p>A: We expect most of our users to have a second machine at home&#8230;.Chrome OS is about a delightful experience on the Web&#8230;.If you&#8217;re a lawyer spending your entire day on contracts, etc., this is not the machine for you.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Will you support Microsoft Silverlight?</em></p>
<p>A: In the case of certain selection plug-ins, we are working to integrate them. No comment beyond that.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Since Chrome is open source, could  people build their own variations?</em></p>
<p>A: Yes. We expect people will do many interesting things with it.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Do you see Chrome running on laptops or desktops?</em></p>
<p>A: We’re initially focused on netbook-like form factors&#8211;clamshells, etc. That said, the OS is being developed to work on other devices.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Is there any level of offline access? What happens when I’m on a plane and don’t want to pay for Wi-Fi?</em></p>
<p>A: Chrome devices are primarily intended to be Internet-connected. That said, it will have some caching abilities so, for example, you could play a game offline.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Virtualization?</em></p>
<p>A: Yes. You could run Chrome today on a virtual machine.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Are you working with outfits like Adobe to, say, build a Web-friendly version of Photoshop?</em></p>
<p>A: We’re very excited by things like Photoshop on the Web and we’re working hard to make that possible.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Will Android apps work on Chrome? Are there plans for third-party apps?</em></p>
<p>A: [Pichai dodges this one.] If it&#8217;s a Web app, it will work on Chrome. The Web works very, very well for our purposes.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Will Chrome work on both X86 and ARM?</em></p>
<p>A: Yes.</p>
<p class="question"><em>Is there a direct business model for Chrome OS or is this another variation of the-more-people-that-use-the-Web-the-better-for-Google?</em></p>
<p>A: We are working with partners. No plans for advertising. That said, Pichai notes again that anything that runs on the Web will run on Chrome. And of course, AdWords does, indeed, run on the Web.</p>
<p>[Sergey Brin joins the Q&#038;A]</p>
<p class="question"><em>Do you want Android Apps to run on Chrome?</em></p>
<p>A: We are focused on creating the use case in which everything is a Web application, but hopefully we can do more in the future.</p>
<p class="question"><em>How does Chrome handle peripherals? Can it print?</em></p>
<p>A: Most keyboards, cameras, phones, etc., will work. In terms of printing&#8230;yes, Chrome OS will print and we&#8217;re working hard to make that possible.</p>
<p class="question"><em>What is Chrome&#8217;s strategic position for Google?</em></p>
<p>A: [Brin]: Call us dumb businessmen, but we really focus on user needs rather than focus on business strategies. We believe that the Web platform is a much simpler way of computing for individuals to use, and that&#8217;s a very important need in the market right now. That&#8217;s what we&#8217;re trying to fulfill.</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091119/a-first-look-at-googles-chrome-os-on-thursday/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google's Mission: To Digitize the World's Books and Make Them Universally Monetizable by Google</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091116/googlebooks/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091116/googlebooks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yahoo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Association of American Publishers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Authors Guild]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concessions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[database]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital book settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gary Reback]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books Settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Archive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Book Alliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orphan works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sleight of hand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unclaimed works fiduciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=29129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers have submitted a new version of their digital book settlement, and while it makes concessions to the Department of Justice and others who have raised concerns about how it may violate antitrust laws, the new proposal doesn't seem to have appeased all of its opponents.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/11/googbooks-150x150.jpg" alt="googbooks" title="googbooks" width="150" height="150" class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-29131" />Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers have submitted a <a href="http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/">new version of their digital book settlement</a>, and while it makes <a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/11/modifications-to-google-books.html">concessions</a> to the Department of Justice and others who have raised concerns about how it may violate antitrust laws, the proposal doesn’t seem to have appeased all of its opponents. Among the settlement’s changes: </p>
<ul>
<li>Orphan works&#8211;books whose copyright holders are unknown&#8211;will be overseen by an independent trustee who will administer their licensing, not by Google.</li>
<li> Books published outside the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia will be excluded from the settlement.
  </ul>
<p>Those are substantive alterations, but they clearly haven’t placated critics who accuse Google (GOOG) of attempting an &#8220;end-run around copyright law as we know it.&#8221; </p>
<p>The Open Book Alliance&#8211;a coalition whose members include the Internet Archive, Amazon (AMZN), Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO)&#8211;has blasted the revision twice already, decrying it as <a href="http://www.openbookalliance.org/2009/11/is-the-google-settlement-worth-the-wait/">&#8220;a sleight of hand&#8221;</a> intended to distract people from Google’s continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution.  </p>
<p>&#8220;The proposed changes fail to address this deal&#8217;s fundamental flaws,&#8221; <a href="http://www.openbookalliance.org/2009/11/proposed-changes-fails-to-address-fundamental-flaws-oba-co-chair-says/">Open Book Alliance Co-Chair Gary Reback said in a vitriolic statement</a>. &#8220;Despite Google&#8217;s effort to spin this deal, it does nothing to promote competition nor does it reform Google&#8217;s exclusive access and monopoly hold on this digital database of books. Their proposed &#8216;unclaimed works fiduciary&#8217; will have zero authority to promote competition or expand access. It is a cynical diversion away from the parties&#8217; continued reliance on the discredited argument that competitors can obtain access through the very means Google did&#8211;getting sued for copyright infringement and abusing the class action process. This deal remains rife with anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.&#8221;</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091116/googlebooks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google Blows Book Search Deal Deadline</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091109/google-blows-book-search-deal-deadline/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091109/google-blows-book-search-deal-deadline/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:36:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Authors Guild Association of American Publishers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deadline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books Settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Boni]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orphan works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proposal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[status conference]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=28552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google’s five-year-old copyright feud with the publishing industry will drag on a few days more now that the deadline for submitting a revised settlement proposal has been pushed back once again. Google and attorneys representing the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers were supposed to file the document today, but instead asked the judge overseeing the matter to give them until the end of the week.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/11/202288021_6648c289de_m-150x150.jpg" width="150" height="150" class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-28556" />Google’s five-year-old copyright feud with the publishing industry will drag on a few days more now that the deadline for submitting a revised settlement proposal has been pushed back once again. Google (GOOG) and attorneys representing the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers were supposed to file the document today, but instead asked the judge overseeing the matter to give them until the end of the week. </p>
<p>&#8220;The parties have been in discussions with the Department of Justice both prior to and since the October 7 status conference,&#8221; <a href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6706261.html?desc=topstory">attorney Michael Boni explained in a letter requesting the extension</a>. &#8220;We met with the Department as recently as this past Friday, November 6. In light of the above, the parties respectfully request this additional time to file the motion.&#8221;</p>
<p>It would seem, then, that the latest version of the settlement did not adequately address the DOJ’s concerns that the agreement could violate antitrust law by giving Google &#8220;de facto exclusive rights for the digital distribution of orphan works.&#8221; Presumably if it had, it would have been filed on time.</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091109/google-blows-book-search-deal-deadline/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>France to Google Books Deal: Go Away or I Shall Taunt You a Second Time </title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090908/goog-books/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090908/goog-books/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:30:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Book Search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[database]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[French Culture Ministry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOOG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[last library]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lost books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nicolas Georges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orphan works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[permission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reuters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sales]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[works]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=24176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google claims that its Book Search settlement will "bring back to life millions of lost books in a way that serves the interest of all." And if that truly is its goal, the company is going to have to put its own Brobdingnagian self interests second to those of others--if only for a little while. To wit, Google’s announcement Monday of a number of concessions to the European Union, which seems a bit dubious of the whole thing.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/09/grail.jpg" alt="grail" title="grail" width="350" height="177" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-24177" />Google claims that its Book Search settlement will &#8220;bring back to life millions of lost books in a way that serves the interest of all.&#8221; And if that truly is its goal, the company is going to have to put its own Brobdingnagian self interests second to those of others&#8211;if only for a little while. </p>
<p>To wit, Google’s announcement Monday of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8242710.stm">a number of concessions to the European Union</a>, which seems a bit dubious of the whole thing. In a letter to several publisher associations in Europe, the company invited two non-U.S. representatives to join the board that will oversee the book rights registry that is to distribute royalties from digital book sales under terms proposed by the settlement. The company also promised to seek their permission before digitally publishing European works still protected by copyrights. </p>
<p>&#8220;Books that are commercially available in Europe will be treated as commercially available under the Settlement,&#8221; Google (GOOG) explained. &#8220;Such books can only be displayed to US users if expressly authorised by rights holders.&#8221;</p>
<p>Quite a concession, given Google’s plans to create a so-called &#8220;last library,&#8221; but clearly necessary with opposition to the deal abroad so pronounced. Already, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN0149201520090901?sp=true">Germany has filed an objection to it</a>, saying the agreement would &#8220;irrevocably alter the landscape of international copyright law.” And now <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSL725081620090907">France is about to do the same</a>. </p>
<p>&#8220;Google will have a monopoly digitalising European orphan works without permission,&#8221; Nicolas Georges, director for books and libraries at the French Culture Ministry, told Reuters. &#8220;Google has the power to determine which work will be in its database or not. For example, some works that are not commercial may be removed by Google.&#8221;</p>
<p>Seems Google&#8217;s effort to establish a de facto worldwide copyright regime isn&#8217;t going to be quite as easy as the company had hoped.</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090908/goog-books/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ganging Up on Google</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090821/ganging-up-on-google/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090821/ganging-up-on-google/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily Live]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yahoo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2009]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amazon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anticompetitive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AT&T]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battery life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carriers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Changewave]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[complaints]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coverage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cupertino]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital library]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Communications Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fee setting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gary Reback]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Archive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone 3Gs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Macworld]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MMS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Book Alliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights holders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tethering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth in billing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vendor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wireless]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=23487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[ See post to watch video ]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="video-wsj"><object width="380" height="216"><param name="movie" value="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/microPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="flashvars" value="videoGUID=37034C4E-0DCB-4FA7-B48B-26B1F68E9B03&playerid=4001&plyMediaEnabled=1&configURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false" base="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/"name="microflashPlayer"></param><embed src="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/microPlayer.swf" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoGUID={37034C4E-0DCB-4FA7-B48B-26B1F68E9B03}&playerid=4001&plyMediaEnabled=1&configURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false" base="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/" name="microflashPlayer" width="380" height="216" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed><br />[ See post to watch video ]</div></object>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090821/ganging-up-on-google/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hell of a Way to Get Out of Your AT&amp;T Contract, Varney&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090706/hell-of-a-way-to-get-out-of-your-att-contract-varney/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090706/hell-of-a-way-to-get-out-of-your-att-contract-varney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Silicon Valley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mobile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AAPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anticompetive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[April]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AT&T]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BlackBerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carrier exclusivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cellphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christine Varney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confirmation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high-speed downlink packet access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inquiry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigtion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long-term evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LTE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Storm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=20756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this year, Christine Varney, the  new antitrust chief at the Department of Justice, said she planned to return the DOJ to a policy that led to landmark antitrust suits like the one against Microsoft in the &#8217;90s. And she delivered on that promise in short order. Since her confirmation in late April, the DOJ has seen a sort of Trustbuster renaissance. It has begun inquiring into potentially anticompetitive recruiting practices in Silicon Valley. It’s opened an investigation into the Google Books settlement. And now it’s scrutinizing cellphone exclusivity deals, like the lucrative one between Apple and AT&#38;T.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/07/iphone-att.jpg" alt="iphone-att" title="iphone-att" width="150" height="120" class="alignright size-full wp-image-20757" />Earlier this year Christine Varney, the Justice Department&#8217;s new antitrust chief, said she planned to return the Department to a policy that led to landmark antitrust suits like the one against Microsoft (MSFT) in the &rsquo;90s. And she delivered on that promise in short order. </p>
<p>Since Varney&#8217;s confirmation in late April, the Department of Justice has  seen a sort of Trustbuster renaissance. The DOJ has begun inquiring into potentially <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090603/doj-fishing-expedition-spotted-off-silicon-valley/">anticompetitive recruiting practices in Silicon Valley</a>. It opened an <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/">investigation into the Google Books (GOOG) settlement</a>. And now, the Department is <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124689740762401297.html">scrutinizing cellphone exclusivity deals</a> like the lucrative one between Apple (AAPL) and AT&#038;T (T). Sources close to the DOJ tell The Wall Street Journal that the agency is probing such deals to see if they adversely restrict consumer choice or hamper competition. </p>
<p>The inquiry, which is in its very early stages, follows recent calls for  <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090616/senators-call-bs-on-carrier-exclusivity/">the Federal Communications Commission to open a similar investigation</a>, and it remains to be seen what, if anything, will come of it. For while exclusivity deals may undermine consumers, there’s little doubt that they benefit them as well. After all, AT&#038;T’s iPhone deal with Apple scared the hell out the entire industry, forcing innovations in handsets and networks alike. Were it not for that deal, we might not be seeing the network improvements now occurring&#8211;the deployment of high-speed downlink packet access  and long-term evolution, or LTE, networks, for example. And we almost certainly wouldn’t have devices like the Palm (PALM) Pre and the BlackBerry Storm. </p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090706/hell-of-a-way-to-get-out-of-your-att-contract-varney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOJ Confirms Antitrust Investigation Into Google Book Settlement</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fairness hearing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gabriel Stricker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOOG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mountain View]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orphaned works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sherman Antitrust Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=20671</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View. On Thursday afternoon, the Department of Justice officially notified Google that it is investigating its book deal for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The notification after the jump.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/07/googfireworks.jpg" alt="googfireworks" title="googfireworks" width="150" height="57" class="alignright size-full wp-image-20685" />Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View&#8230;</p>
<p>The Justice Department probe of the Google Books settlement is heating up. On Thursday afternoon, the agency officially opened an investigation into the deal, which would allow the search sovereign to make millions of books available online. </p>
<p>“The United States has reviewed public comments expressing concern that aspects of the settlement agreement may violate the Sherman Act,” wrote William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general. “At this preliminary stage, the United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry.”</p>
<p>The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works&#8211;copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder. The notification, included below, is the first time the DOJ has confirmed the investigation publicly and said that it is indeed looking at possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.</p>
<p>Odd that the letter was filed this week inasmuch as the &#8220;fairness hearing&#8221; that will determine whether final approval is given to the settlement is still months away.  Clearly, <a href="http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/google-makes-a-case-that-it-isnt-so-big/">Google&#8217;s recent public relations offensive</a> claiming the company is just as vulnerable to competition as anyone else hasn’t had much effect.</p>
<p>Reached for comment, Google spokesperson Gabriel Stricker offered the following statement:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The Department of Justice and several state attorneys general have contacted us to learn more about the impact of the settlement, and we are happy to answer their questions.</p>
<p>It’s important to note that this agreement is non-exclusive and if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p><object id="_ds_8068529" name="_ds_8068529" width="350 " height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=8068529&#038;mem_id=780373&#038;doc_type=pdf&#038;fullscreen=0&#038;showrelated=0&#038;showotherdocs=0&#038;showstats=0 "/><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object> <br /> <font size="1"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8068529/2009.07.02 Order _ DOJ Letter"> 2009.07.02 Order _ DOJ Letter</a> &#8211; </font> </p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Google Book Search for "Antitrust Law" Ought to Come in Handy Here&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090429/a-google-book-search-for-antitrust-law-ought-to-come-in-handy-here/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090429/a-google-book-search-for-antitrust-law-ought-to-come-in-handy-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yahoo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amazon.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Association of American Publishers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[authors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Authors Guild]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berkeley Center for Law & Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Book Search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital library]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digitize]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fair use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOOG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[license]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Content Alliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opt out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orphan works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[out of print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pamela Samuelson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[permission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishers']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subscriptions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unknown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=16591</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google’s gone and run afoul of the Department of Justice again. Its interest piqued by the growing outcry over the company’s proposed book-search settlement with authors and publishers, the agency has opened an inquiry.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/04/googbooks.jpg" alt="googbooks" title="googbooks" width="200" height="186" class="alignright size-full wp-image-16592" />Google&#8217;s gone and <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20081203/googlenewmicrosoft/">run afoul of the Department of Justice again</a>. Its interest piqued by the growing outcry over the company’s proposed book-search settlement with authors and publishers, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124095639971465549.html">the agency has opened an inquiry</a>. </p>
<p>Sources briefed on the matter say DOJ attorneys have contacted Google (GOOG) as well as the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/internet/29google.html?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss">the antitrust implications of the agreement</a>. Presumably at issue here are concerns over the settlement&#8217;s opt-out terms&#8211;authors and publishers who don’t opt out have effectively opted in&#8211;and the fate of orphan works, books still in copyright but whose copyright owners are unknown. </p>
<p>Orphan works number in the millions and the fear is that this settlement gives Google a powerful blanket license for them. As <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/04/legally-speaking-the-dead-soul.html">Pamela Samuelson, director of the Berkeley Center for Law &#038; Technology, recently noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote class="memo"><p>
An estimated 70 per cent of the books in the Book Search repository are in-copyright, but out of print. Most of them are, for all practical purposes, “orphan works,” that is, works for which it is virtually impossible to locate the appropriate rights holders to ask for permission to digitize them&#8230;.The proposed settlement agreement would give Google a monopoly on the largest digital library of books in the world&#8230;.Google will also be the only service lawfully able to sell orphan books and monetize them through subscriptions&#8230;.Virtually the only way that Amazon.com, Microsoft, Yahoo!, or the Open Content Alliance could get a comparably broad license as the settlement would give Google would be by starting its own project to scan books. The scanner might then be sued for copyright infringement, as Google was. It would be very costly and very risky to litigate a fair use claim to final judgment given how high copyright damages can be (up to $150,000 per infringed work). Chances are also slim that the plaintiffs in such a lawsuit would be willing or able to settle on equivalent or even similar terms.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Samuelson concludes that the Book Search agreement as written is essentially a major restructuring of the book industry and an anticompetitive one at that. If that is indeed the case&#8211;and Google maintains that it is not&#8211;it’s worrisome indeed. Certainly, it&#8217;s reason enough for the DOJ to give the agreement a good once-over.</p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090429/a-google-book-search-for-antitrust-law-ought-to-come-in-handy-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>