Scrivener's Error

null
Scrivener's Error	Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting.

30 October 2008

link to: 09:32 [GMT-8]

Google Library Project Settlement (1)

On 28 October 2008, the Authors Guild¹ and Google announced a proposed settlement of litigation over the Google Library Project. The AG sued Google and the University of Michigan for their scanning of books in the UM libraries in 2005 without seeking prior authorization from the publishers, authors, or other rightsholders. The lawsuit was filed as a class action purporting to cover all printed works and their rightsholders.

As my earlier screed (linked above) makes clear, I think the lawsuit is fundamentally flawed. I am still working my way through the entire set of proposed settlement documents, but that is over 300 pages (including the appendices... at least two of which appear at first glance to silently modify substantive aspects of the main settlement document). It's definitely time for a major caveat:

What follows is commentary. It is not legal advice for your particular situation. Neither should it be construed as a solicitation of any kind. Conversely, even if you are potentially a member of a covered class, you are not required to pay anyone anything to process anything related to this settlement, unless you choose to retain counsel for that purpose.²

As of this date, the process for dealing with the proposed settlement will look something like this:

Beginning on 05 January 2009, a joint venture among the AG, several publishers, Google, and several major university libraries (the Settlement Administrator) will begin contacting those they believe are the rightsholders in books that have been scanned. Notification must be completed on or before 29 February 2009.
During the notification process, the various parties and objectors (see below) will be making both routine and nonroutine filings with the court. Many of these will be picked up on by observers with varying degrees of understanding of the class-settlement process. This will undoubtedly result in a lot of both informed and uninformed speculation and outright bloviation.
On or before 05 May 2009, anyone who does not wish to be part of the settlement must submit a short form to the Settlement Administrator opting out of the settlement. There will be no fee for submitting the form, and submitting the form does not require entering an appearance or retaining counsel for that purpose. Persons opting out may not object to the substantive terms of the settlement in court.
On or before 05 May 2009, anyone who objects to the settlement's terms and wishes to challenge them in court must do so in a formal filing. It will be up to the judge whether this requires a lawyer to appear for individuals, but in my considerable experience managing class actions (over 60 matters) both judges and the other parties will ignore an objection that is not filed by counsel. Anyone who files a formal objection will be bound by the settlement, whether or not it is later modified presuming that the court approves the settlement at all after considering the objections.
Some time after 05 May 2009, the court will hold a fairness hearing at which it will consider any objections raised, and even objections that the judge might raise on his own.³
Some time after the fairness hearing, the court will issue a formal opinion accepting, modifying and accepting, or rejecting the settlement. Only persons who actually objected to the settlement, or the named parties in the settlement, would be allowed to appeal any part of the court's approval, modification, or rejection of the settlement.

Of course, the court itself may modify any of the above dates. Next time, I'll begin diving into some of the many substantive flaws with this settlement. On balance, I think this settlement is not in anybody's best interests... but, as usual, the actual creators of content will be screwed most thoroughly. For a preview of part of my objection, you might be dubiously amused (and hopefully informed) by my academically oriented, math-fortified analysis of the orphan-works problem (link to abstract and downloadable PDF).

The Author's [sic] Guild has changed its webpage and most of its publications to remove the apostrophe over the last few years. However, the lawsuit itself is still captioned with an apostrophe, as are some of the corporate charter documents. It's rather ironic that an organization for writers can't even get the grammar of its own name correct (dammit, if I have had to struggle through the correct form of the plural possessive in half a dozen languages, an organization of writers should do so without being asked!). For simplicity, and consistency with the previous essay, I'll be referring to "AG" from here on.
Unfortunately, there is a small boiler-room industry of questionable operations that offer to "help" class members in major litigation with their claims — for a fee. In my experience, these scavengers harm a great deal more than they help. Although I have not yet seen any of them raising their ugly heads in this lawsuit — yet — the proposed settlement was announced only two days ago, so it's only a matter of time. Don't compound the problems with the settlement itself by letting someone make you pay, even if you decide that it's not worth it to you to either opt out or object!
The judge to whom this case is assigned has a history of scepticism of purportedly overbroad settlements. I will be covering "overbreadth" and the class definitions pretty soon.

Labels: copyright, intellectual property, internet, jurisprudence, publishing

Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.

All material © 2003–13 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.

Site Feed

I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.

Sausages?

Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.

I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.

Archives

Warped Weft

Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of the more infamous threads that have appeared here by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.

Links of Interest

Links open in a new window.

Writer Beware and the Writer Beware Blog provide essential knowledge for writers who don't want to be ripped off
Writing-World.com published by the former managing editor of the now-defunct Inklings
Agent Research & Evaluation provides both free and paid analyses of literary agents
US Copyright Office, including both registration forms and records and quite a bit of other helpful information
Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) allows searches of granted, pending, and some rejected trademark registrations
US Supreme Court Opinions from the current and past couple of terms
Law Library of Congress includes statutes for free
The Public Library of Law can help you find the law... but not use it in court, as many of its resources are not in proper form and do not provide all of the citation information needed in court papers
Legal, free e-books are available through Online Books (University of Pennsylvania) and Shakespeare (MIT)
Legal, free music is available through
- ClassicCat.net (what kind of music do you think you'll find here?)
- Music.Download.com (long-awaited successor to MP3.com)
- Janis Ian (artist)
- John McCutcheon (artist)

Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals

These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.

A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.

How Appealing is aimed at appellate lawyers and legal news in general. If you care about the state of the law, start here — Howard's commentary is far better balanced, better informed, and better considered than any of the media outlets. To concentrate on the Supreme Court, don't forget SCOTUSBlog.
Some academics' blawgs with a variety of political (and doctrinal) viewpoints:
- Professor Anthony Arend (Georgetown Law)
- Professor Stephen Bainbridge (UCLA Law) (aka "The Perfesser")
- Professor Jack Balkin (Yale Law)
- Professor Dennis Crouch (Missouri Law) (better known as Patently-O)
- Professor Michael Froomkin (University of Miami Law)
- Professor Eric Goldman (Santa Clara University Law)
- Professor Rick Hasen (UC-Irvine)
- Professor Brian Leiter (U of Chicago Law/Philosophy)
- Professor Michael Madison (Pitt Law)
- Professor Rebecca Tushnet (Georgetown Law)
BoingBoing, by speculative fiction writer (and 'net activist) Cory Doctorow, is quite hostile to copyright enforcement efforts, particularly regarding file-sharing
The main European IP blawg of interest remains the UK-based IPKat, on a variety of intellectual property issues, with some overlap (with a less Eurocentric view) at IPFinance
Cyberlaw (Stanford) has its agenda grounded firmly in the so-called "digital commons," which might make a bit more sense if any of the advocates of that viewpoint understood diddly-squat about population ecology
The American Constitution Society blawg is a purportedly "liberal" counterweight to the so-called "Federalist Society" (which, despite its claims, should be called "Tory Society") that has yet to establish much coherence... but maybe that's all to the good.

Searches

Optimized for at 1024x768.