|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.|
link to: 09:32 [GMT-8]
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:
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).
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 © 200313 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.
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.
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.
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
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.
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 # >.