Therefore, while the registry required by the settlement is not necessarily an antitrust problem, the registry permitted by it could well be one. What then, should we do about it? First, the registrys structural protections should be supplemented. Its acceptable and understandable for the registrys charter to require that at least one author representative and at least one publisher representative consent to any action it takes, but that veto rule doesnt require that they be the only members of its board. There should also be R1 members appointed to represent libraries and the reading public. In addition to objecting if the registry takes anti-competitive, anti-reader actions, these additional members would be able to monitor its actions, bringing important transparency to this new quarter-ton gorilla of the book industry. Second, the registry should be under ongoing antitrust scrutiny from the day of its birth. As a condition of settlement approval, the registry should be R2 required to negotiate and sign an antitrust consent decree with the department of Justice.
You the outsiders book report essay writing
Its specifically prohibited from representing any subgroup of copyright owners; it has to act in all their interest. (This keeps it from being used by one group of authors, say, to suppress the market for another groups books.) Similarly, its board is equally divided between authors and publishers, with any action requiring a majority. The most important defanging provisions are that copyright owners have (a) unlimited authority to strike side deals with anyone they like, (b) nearly unlimited authority to pull out of the program entirely, and (c) unlimited authority to set the prices they charge for e-books sold. These facts keep the registry from acting like a classic price-fixing cartel; individual publishers essay can easily defect and charge less (or more). Its true that theres a bit of coordination, but its not really much more than youd see with any online book sales—publishers can already see what other publishers suggested prices are by looking on Amazon. Why, then, is the registry an anticompetitive threat? It has to do with the class nature of this class action settlement. If google would like to negotiate, say, an encryption standard and drm terms for book downloads, without the registry, it needs to negotiate one-on-one with authors and publishers. But the registry is authorized to negotiate on their behalf, all of their behalf. It could agree with google on a privacy-intrusive drm system that fed back usage information into a database used to do industry-wide price-fixing in the guise of price discrimination. Yes, authors are able to opt in and out individually, but the registrys centralizing role permits essay various anti-competitive practices to be laundered through its coordinating negotiating function.
It has approval power over the security plans that google and the various libraries use. I read the settlement to give it some power to negotiate the terms of the licenses that participating libraries must agree to in order to participate. It has broad discretion to work out an equitable formula for dividing revenues among authors. If your antitrust sensors arent pinging wildly at this point, please make sure theyre properly calibrated. The registry is a centralized entity with the authority to negotiate on behalf of all book copyright owners. As such, it walks and quacks like a cartel. My antitrust is a bit weak, but my understanding is that were all authors and publishers (i.e., the plaintiff class, more or less) to gather in a room and sign a piece of paper giving the registry the powers listed above, itd be per. They could do some frightful things to dictate terms to resellers and readers. The settlement recognizes this danger, and accordingly puts some very important limits on the registry.
P1: The registry poses an antitrust problem. The agreement establishes a powerful new book rights Registry. Its necessary to have one for basic administrative tasks: maintaining a database of who owns what copyrights, mediating ownership disputes, processing payments, and. Its also smart to separate the registry from google: the registry has less of a conflict of interest in tracking down awol authors, and biography its suitably adversarial when auditing googles records and security procedures. A centralized Registry that operates on behalf of all authors and publishers is one of the pieces of our current copyright institutions (think of soundExchange) that the settlement cleverly remixes into its new system. The registry doesnt just shredder have ministerial tasks, though. It also has a lot of authority to negotiate on behalf of authors and publishers. It can negotiate the terms of New revenue models (such as print-on-demand, pdf download, coursepacks, and so on).
This fact means that to the extent the rest of us want the court to modify the settlement or even to think about particular issues, we need to find a hook to put them properly before the court. There are some such hooks (see below but the fair use question isnt one of them. I dont see a way to cram that specific copyright issue under the general public interest heading the court is directed to take into account. Thus, i start from a baseline of believing that R0 the settlement should be approved. It makes all of us better off, and it is, in an intuitive and meaningful sense, quite fair to all involved. I have concerns and critiques, but I see them as patches to make the settlement better, not as do-or-die clauses the settlement must absolutely contain. Mend it, dont end. Thus, the implementation of our zeroth principle, approve the settlement, is simple: R0: Approve the settlement.
The, outsiders : About, the, outsiders, book
Id rather join the all-media fair use battle in another case where the equities tip more clearly in favor of fair use. Second, even if we scholars would like a fair use fight, its not our call to make here. Google was the defendant; it earned that dubious privilege by actually scanning and searching books. Having stepped up to the plate to risk a lawsuit—and having gotten beaned with one—google now forklift has the right to choose whether to settle. Lets keep in mind that googles choice to settle takes away no legal rights from anyone else; one else loses the fair use argument because google didnt chance. I have seen raised the the argument that googles capitulation means theres now a functioning licensing market homework for searching books. If true, this fact would undercut fair use claims by googles competitors, since it would imply that scanning-and-searching without payment takes away revenue that copyright holders could have realized.
The hole in this argument is that this isnt a market one can negotiate in without at some point needing to file lawsuits. As i explain in part 2, the settlement by itself does not result in a situation where googles competitors can cleanly license all the rights they need to start large-scale scanning of the in-copyright but out-of-print backlist the way that google did. And third, given that google and the author/publishers are the parties here, i do not see how the court could be forced to consider the fair use issue. The adversarial legal process lets parties present their cases and controversies to a judge for resolution. It doesnt generally let outsiders force the parties to litigate issues not of their choosing.
These are serious benefits, and the settlement is a universal win compared with the status quo. Is the status quo the right point of comparison? Id been hoping that google would establish that its scanning and searching features were fair uses. That would open up the book search business to anyone, free from legal taint. Whats more, it would give us a powerful, portable fair use principle that could do a lot of other good in this digital age.
Fair use fans have been complaining that the settlement deprives us of that determination. I do regret that loss, and I would rather have a definitive fair use finding than the settlement. But thats not the choice on the table, and there are several good reasons why we should settle for the settlement. First, while i thought that the fair use finding ought to be favorable, i dont necessarily expect that it will. This may be the most doctrinally controversial copyright issue since. Grokster ; scholars are split pretty much down the middle. There was a very strong chance that a court would have found definitively against fair use, and the damage such a finding could do would be immense. Im not a gambling man, and while i thought the odds were decent, this bird in the hand definitely beats the ones in the fair use bush. The settlement is so comprehensive, when it comes to books, that it gives us perhaps 80 or 90 percent of the actual uses of books a positive fair use finding would have enabled.
The outsiders book read online
They can choose the price they sell individual copies at; theyll get a proportion of the revenues from other uses based on how popular their books are. Public and nonprofit libraries will get at least some minimal all-you-can-drink privileges at the fire hose. Universities, schools, and lots of other institutions will be able to subscribe to the fire hose of books, as well. The libraries participating in scanning books will get back digital copies of the books from their collections. While there will be usage shredder restrictions on the in-copyright ones, the digital copies of the public-domain ones are not to be sneezed. The public as individuals get an incredibly useful book search engine, one that will come increasingly close to being genuinely comprehensive over time. We also get another convenient source of e-books, free pdf access night to millions upon millions of public-domain books, and some degree of full-text library-based access to the rest. The public at large gets a substantial leg up on solving the orphan works problem. This system will encourage some copyright owners to come forward, will enable many sensible uses of many books for which no copyright owner can be found, and will help in cleaning up the records to help track down copyright owners in general.
following as a set of guiding principles (numbered P0 to P5 and in bold) for the court as it considers whether to approve the settlement, and for the public to help in thinking about the effects of the settlement. Interwoven with them are more specific recommendations (numbered R0 to R15 and in italics concrete changes the court ought to make to the settlement. If youd like to go straight to the recommendations, theres a list at the end of this document. P0: The settlement should be approved. My starting point is that the settlement is a good thing. Everyone is better off than in a world where the alternative is no google book search. Google will take in a lot of money selling e-books to consumers, subscription databases to libraries, and book search ads to advertisers. Authors and publishers will receive the majority of that money.
Just 'cos I'm wrong it don't make you right. No you ain't right oh, why are we keeping about score 'cos if you're not laughing who is laughing now. On the outside you're free to roam. On the outside we found a home. On the outside there's more to see. On the outside we choose. Any reproduction is prohibited.
The outsiders book online
Shortfalls and little sins close calls where no one wins. Stand tall we're running thin, i'm wearing thin oh, why are we type keeping score 'cos if you're not laughing who is laughing now. I've been wondering if we stop sinking could we stand our ground. And through everything we've learned, we've finally come to terms we are the outsiders. Oh oh oh we are the outsiders. Oh oh oh, i'm not leaving without a fight. I got my holster around my side.