Court Rejects Google Book Scanning Settlement With The Authors Guild

from the back-to-square-one dept

Well, well, well. For many years there's been quite the back and forth about Google's book scanning project. As you may recall, years back, Google started scanning various books to create what was effectively a giant online card catalog, making it much easier to research and find useful books. Contrary to what some have claimed, it did not make it easy to read entire books online. In fact, publishers began realizing that Google's book search helped sales by helping people find their books, and directing them to where those books could be bought. But, still, the rather backwards looking Authors Guild couldn't resist and sued. It seemed like Google had an incredibly strong fair use argument, especially if you take into account the original intent and purpose of copyright law, being a statute to increase the spread of knowledge.

Unfortunately, after a few years of fighting back and forth, Google caved, with a "settlement" that was hardly a "settlement" at all, but rather a way for Google to effectively lock up the online book scanning business all to itself. I thought this was disappointing for any number of reasons, and many people agreed, leading Google and the Authors Guild to scrap the original settlement for a new one that was only slightly more reasonable. It still seemed more like a business deal, rather than a settlement, and still ignored the key fair use questions raised by the lawsuit.

Today, however, a district court judge has rejected the settlement. The full ruling by Judge Danny Chin is embedded below, but the short version is that the settlement was rejected because, as with the original settlement, this was more of a business deal in which Google benefits at the expense of competitors. That part, I'm fine with. Where I'm more troubled is that Chin claims that this settlement "rewards" Google "for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission."

The ruling does acknowledge the many, many benefits of Google's book scanning project:

The benefits of Google's book project are many. Books will become more accessible. Libraries, schools, researchers, and disadvantaged populations will gain access to far more books. Digitization will facilitate the conversion of books to Braille and audio formats, increasing access for individuals with disabilities. Authors and publishers will benefit as well, as new audiences will be generated and new sources of income created. Older books -- particularly out-of-print books, many of which are falling apart buried in library stacks -- will be preserved and given new life.

I agree with the decision to dump the settlement. It seemed clear that the settlement goes way beyond the issues in the case to create a separate right that perhaps the Authors Guild had no right to negotiate over. And that seems to be the key concern by the judge. The judge suggests, if anything, that Congress is the proper party to step in here and define the rights over these kinds of books.

The judge does acknowledge the fair use argument, but really only to point out that it was the crux of the lawsuit, but is more or less ignored by the settlement. He does seem to suggest that the fair use defense wouldn't fly here, but doesn't go into any thorough analysis. I'm a bit disappointed by that, because I still think that the fair use claim here was strong, and claiming that this was clear infringement is misleading and will be a problem down the road. In fact, the analysis on the copyright issues reaches somewhat troubling depths, suggesting that it found claims from authors of moral rights to their works -- which are not recognized in the US -- persuasive, in arguing that the scanning was infringement.

In the end, rejecting the settlement was probably the right move, but I'm troubled by the suggestion that the scanning itself was clearly infringement, and the skipping over of fair use as an important issue here, compounded by the acceptance of moral claims from authors that they "don't want" someone digitizing "their" works.

Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, fair use, settlement
Companies: authors guild, google

Gibson 'Settles' Patent Lawsuit Over Guitar Hero

from the rock-on dept

You may recall that famed guitar maker Gibson started claiming that its patent (5,990,405) on a "simulated musical concert" system was being infringed upon by various musical video games. Gibson went nuclear, suing everyone it could possibly think of, including companies who were just retailers of the game for patent infringement. Pretty quickly a court told Gibson that the lawsuit "bordered on the frivolous" which didn't bode well for Gibson. However, THREsq points us to the news that Gibson has "settled" the lawsuit and will be dropping the case. Given the way the courts reacted early on to the lawsuit, you have to imagine that "settlement" wasn't for very much money. My guess is that Viacom offered Gibson something less than it would have cost to continue defending these lawsuits to make the company go back to focusing on making guitars.

Filed Under: guitar hero, patent, settlement
Companies: activision, gibson, viacom

Record Labels Basically Admit That Statutory Damages Out Of Proportion As They Ask For Third Jammie Thomas Trial

from the groundhog-day dept

I guess it's fitting that this happens in early February. Slashdot points us to the news that, as was widely expected, the record labels have opted for a third trial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, rather than accept the reduced award of $2,250 per song, as set by the judge. Not surprisingly, the labels are doing this because they disagree with the precedent of a judge changing the jury award, and the new trial is limited solely to the damages question. But, honestly, the whole thing is a bit weird. If the judge can reduce the older jury award, and a new jury sets a higher rate, can the judge just reduce it again, and we go through this entire process for the fourth time? The Slashdot post, written by Ray Beckermann claims that the labels "could only win a verdict that is equal to, or less than, $54,000," in the new trial, but I'm not sure why he says that. Is it because the judge would reduce it again? This is not at all clear.

Still, the actual filing from the RIAA's lawyers has some interesting claims (pdf):

While Plaintiffs do not believe that either verdict was improper under the law, or that the second verdict should be remitted, they would have considered accepting a remittitur simply so that this case could finally come to an end. However, any remittitur must otherwise be consistent with the law and be guided by what actual juries have awarded under similar circumstances. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs find it impossible to accept a remittitur that could be read to set a new standard for statutory damages -- essentially capping those damages at three times the minimum statutory amount of $750 (or $2,250) for any "noncommercial individuals who illegally download and upload music." (Id. at 2, 25.) This far-reaching determination is contrary to the law and creates a statutory scheme that Congress did not intend or enact.

It's a bit of a stretch to claim that this would be a cap on "any" unauthorized noncommercial file distribution. I would imagine that any court still has the right to take into account the specific circumstances to make sure the award is proportionate to the rights being violated. The labels' lawyers are stretching what the judge said here.

Indeed, Congress has spoken on this very topic. Congress deliberately and purposefully established a range of statutory damages that applies without regard to the commercial motivation of the defendant.

I find this statement funny, because they then cite what Congress said way back in 1999. Fair enough, Congress (which basically just took RIAA talking points and put them into the Congressional record) did make those comments -- but these are the same entertainment industry lawyers who supported a "secondary liability" or inducement standard in the Grokster case, even though Congress had specifically rejected an attempt to put an inducement standard into the law. And when confronted, how does the RIAA explain that? Well, they say "the situation changed." Ah, so it's okay to have the courts change copyright law when the situation changes in one direction, but not the other?

What the judge was doing here was recognizing that the amount the jury awarded was clearly out of proportion to the actual infringement -- just as the courts in Grokster supposedly recognized that an inducement standard made sense in shutting down third parties (something I disagree with, but it's how the court felt). It seems that the RIAA and its lawyers have a massive double standard here.

A rule that the maximum permissible award in cases involving so-called "noncommercial" infringers is three times minimum statutory damages also ignores the harm caused by such infringers. From an economic perspective, individuals who give away copyrighted works illegally can cause as much harm as those who sell those works illegally, particularly when the so-called "non-commercial" infringer uses a P2P service. The notion that an infringer who does not make a profit should automatically be entitled to better treatment than an infringer who does make a profit is found nowhere in the law. The "not for profit" infringer is hardly entitled to special protection, which is why Congress conferred no such protection.

Again, Congress also conferred no such thing as an inducement liability, but the courts -- at the urging of the RIAA -- conferred exactly that via the courts. Why such a double standard?

The Court's cap would set a new ceiling such that no copyright owner could effectively enforce their rights unless they could and did sue on numerous works. No copyright owner would be motivated to enforce its rights where it could only sue on a handful of works because the potential recovery would be too limited. Congress set a wide range of statutory damages for copyright cases precisely because plaintiffs need to be incentivized to bring appropriate cases to enforce their rights -- even those who own a small number of copyrights or those who only have a limited number of works infringed. Conversely, the Court's artificially depressed cap compels parties with a large number of copyrights at stake to sue on all of them, rather than a more modest number. This serves only to increase the discovery and trial burdens on parties and courts. Yet the Court's inflexible "three times" cap would invariably penalize plaintiffs with a small number of works at issue, and would force those with a lot of works to add to their complaints unnecessarily.

Woe is the RIAA. If the awards for unauthorized sharing of a $1 song that might help promote their artists and help them make more money (if only the RIAA were to adapt to a changing market place) might "only" be 2,250 times the market price of the song? Cry me a river. And, even more ridiculous is the claim that this is some undue burden on the RIAA that it might have to actually sue over all of the songs someone distributed in an unauthorized manner, rather than just selecting a handful as it does now. This is a major issue. Technically, the RIAA has been able to just pick a couple dozen songs and sue over those, knowing that the totally disproportionate statutory damages will "cover" the rest. But does that seem right to anyone? The idea that rather than proving the actual harm done by the actual distribution, the RIAA is allowed to just pick a "sampling" and without proof get back many times the price without even presenting any actual evidence of the wider damage or the wider distribution of more files?

It seems perfectly reasonable to expect the RIAA should have to actually include what they claim was infringed, rather than being able to just pick a handful, knowing that the totally out of proportion statutory damages will "cover" the rest.

In fact, the paragraph above is effectively the RIAA admitting that it knows the statutory damages are out of proportion, but it believes it's fair because the RIAA is too cheap and too lazy to actually sue people for what it claims they infringed on.

Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Still, as we've said for a while now, this is a really bad case all around. It's pretty clear that Thomas-Rassett was involved in widespread infringement, and then lied about it. If people are going to challenge ridiculous statutory rates and other aspects of copyright law, this is really bad case to do that (ditto for the Tenenbaum case). This is one where it seems like she really might have been better off settling early and moving on. And the oddity of the judge reducing the jury award just makes this whole case into something of a circus...

Filed Under: appeal, constitution, copyright, jammie thomas, jammie thomas-rasset, settlement, statutory damages
Companies: riaa

Jammie Thomas Rejects Offer From RIAA To Settle For $25k Plus Request For Judge To Vacate Last Week's Decision

from the and-so-it-goes dept

After the judge in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case decided to reduce the amount awarded to the record labels by the jury, we had hoped that both sides would figure out a way to just end this lawsuit. However, it looks like that's not happening. As we noted, the RIAA was extremely reluctant to accept the new, greatly reduced, award, not because of the amount, but because they're afraid to set precedent that a judge can lower the award in chosen by a jury using statutory damages in a copyright case. So, instead, the RIAA tried to offer Jammie a deal: pay $25,000 (donated to a musician's charity) and ask the judge to vacate the reduction in the award, and the case would be settled. This isn't surprising. The RIAA would just like the case to be over, but doesn't want to set the precedent, so they ask Thomass-Rasset to pay less, but the "trade" is to get the decision deleted. Thomas-Rasset quickly rejected the offer, and now it seems likely that the RIAA will reject the reduced amount and everyone will go back to trial over just the damage amount. In an interesting bit of spin, Thomas-Rasset's lawyers are claiming that this shows that the RIAA just wants to use this case as a "bogeyman" in order "to scare people into doing what they want," rather than as an attempt to actually recover any real damages.

Filed Under: appeal, constitution, copyright, jammie thomas, jammie thomas-rasset, settlement, statutory damages
Companies: riaa

New Google Book Settlement Tries To Appease Worries

from the doesn't-really-change-much dept

Late (very late) Friday, Google and groups representing publishers and authors squeaked in just under the deadline and put forth a revised Book Scanning settlement agreement, designed to address at least some of the concerns and complaints raised by people over the last one. If you want a good breakdown over the changes, check out Danny Sullivan's analysis or James Grimmelmann's. Not surprisingly, the Open Book Alliance is not happy, but seeing as it's a bunch of Google competitors, they were never going to be happy in the first place (and you know that press release was probably 95% written before the actual new terms were released).

In my mind, the biggest news is the new restrictions on countries from which it will scan books. From now on, the book scanning project will only scan books that have registered copyrights in the US, UK, Australia or Canada. This was mainly to address ridiculous concerns by some in Europe that this project -- to help make all books more accessible -- was somehow a threat to European culture. I was in Europe on Friday (well, Saturday there) when the announcement was made, and it actually pissed off the folks I talked to about it -- who felt that their politicians were doing serious harm to European books by having them excluded from such a useful resource.

Separately, a lot of the focus on this new agreement, as with the old agreement, is over how Google treats orphan works. Again, I have to admit that I think most people are making a much bigger deal of this than it warrants. The orphan works stuff really covers a very small number of works. And giving rightsholders ten years to claim their rights seems more than adequate to me. I just don't see what the big deal is here. The real issue is that we have orphan works at all. Under the old (more sensible) copyright regime, you actually had to proactively declare your copyright interest. The only reason we have orphan works at all is that we got rid of such a system in the ongoing effort of copyright maximalists to wipe out the public domain.

Anyway, I think this is all something of a sideshow. I still stand by my original feeling towards the settlement, which is that I'm upset anyone felt it was necessary at all. Google had a strong fair use claim that I would have liked to have seen taken all the way through the courts. And, of course, this settlement really has nothing at all to do with the main issue of the lawsuit (that fair use question) and is really a debate over a separate issue: how to take the books Google scans and trying to turn them into a "book store" rather than more of a "library." And, in doing so, the important fair use question gets completely buried -- which I find unfortunate.

Filed Under: authors, book scanning, book search, copyright, fair use, orphan works, publishers, settlement
Companies: google

Google Book Settlement Off For Now... May Be Renegotiated

from the reading-the-unscanned-tea-leaves dept

With so much opposition from pretty much everyone about the "settlement" between Google and authors/publishers' representatives, it looks like the parties are looking to renegotiate the deal. It wasn't too hard to read the tea leaves on this: there was so much vocal opposition -- including from the US gov't -- that it seemed unlikely that the settlement would ever get approved. My question, though, is what would a better settlement look like? I'm still of the opinion that no settlement should be needed, and that Google has a strong case that what's it's done is protected fair use. However, it appears that Google no longer wants to fight that battle, so we'll see some other settlement (probably involving Google coughing up more money and granting more restrictions), and we'll go through this whole argument again.

Filed Under: book scanning, copyright, settlement
Companies: google

DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 Per Song Unconstitutional Or Oppressive

from the tell-that-to-Jammie dept

While this probably isn't a huge surprise, given the fact that the Justice Department is stocked with former lawyers for the entertainment industry (and because it's filed similar briefs before), but it's still worth noting that the Justice Department has filed a brief in the Jammie Thomas lawsuit, in support of the constitutionality of the $1.92 million fine (and, no, none of the former RIAA lawyers are signatories to the brief, though you have to imagine their "expertise" was consulted). The reasoning is quite troubling and appears to include some serious revisionist history.

First, what's stunning is that the brief claims the awards are perfectly constitutional because it is not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense [or] obviously unreasonable." Really? It seems that an awful lot of people find the idea of being forced to hand over $80,000 per song without any evidence that it was ever actually shared by anyone is severe and oppressive to the point that it's disproportionate to the offense and quite obviously unreasonable. I mean, this is a woman who wanted to listen to her favorite bands, and she now has to pay nearly $2 million. How can anyone claim that's not "severe and oppressive" in relation to the actual "harm" done?

Second, the brief claims that the damages should be much more than the $1.29 price per song found on iTunes, because it "ignores the potential multiplying effect of peer-to-peer file-sharing." Except, if that were the case, shouldn't the plaintiffs been required to show that these songs were actually shared? And should Thomas also be liable for the actions of anyone else she shared the songs with? That seems to go quite beyond what the law states.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, is the Justice Department's sneaky little claim that the statutory rates are obviously fair for file sharing, because they were put in place in 1999, with the explicit statement from Congress that these numbers were there because of internet file sharing. That sounds good, but ignores the fact that this little change in the law was pushed almost entirely by entertainment industry lobbyists (the same folks who now run the Justice Department!) to protect their dying business model, rather than through any empirical evidence. The real original purpose of statutory rates had nothing to do with punishing personal, non-commercial use, but were very much about dealing with commercial harm.

It's a neat, but immensely troubling, trick by the entertainment industry. Sneak through bizarre and totally unsupported legislation through a Congress that's never met a stronger copyright law it didn't love, using your high paid lobbyists. Then, get those same lobbyists appointed to the Justice Department to defend it against Constitutional challenges. Regulatory capture at its finest.

Filed Under: constitutional, copyright, file sharing, fine, jammie thomas, lawsuit, music, settlement
Companies: doj

AP Settles All Headline News Lawsuit; Forgets To Report On It?

from the this-is-odd dept

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the AP's reliance on a rather ancient precedent that "hot news" can be protected, despite the fact that you can't copyright factual information, in its case against the site All Headline News. This has thrust the concept of "hot news" protection back into the spotlight after most people considered it a dead concept. Now, suddenly, newspapers all over are talking about trying to extend the "hot news" concept and even expanding copyright law to explicitly allow such hot news protectionism, despite the massive harm it would do. For that reason, the lawsuit between the AP and AHN was quite important... and yet, Will alerts us to the fact that the the AP and AHN quietly settled the lawsuit last month (warning: pdf). No details are provided in the settlement announcement, but the key thing for the AP is it lets it act as if "hot news" is definitely still allowed. A full lawsuit with AHN pushing back on the concept could have wiped out the concept of hot news, and clearly the AP didn't want that to happen just as it was about to start threatening and suing a bunch of aggregators. Perhaps that's why the Associated Press didn't even seem to report on its own "hot news."

Filed Under: copyright, hot news, news. ownership, settlement
Companies: all headline news, associated press

As Jammie Thomas Seeks New Trial, RIAA Claims (Incorrectly) That She Distributed 1,700 Songs To Millions

from the can't-stop-the-lying dept

This will come as a surprise to just about no one, but Jammie Thomas' lawyers have pointed out that the $1.92 million verdict against her is excessive, and is asking the judge to either throw out the award, lower it to the statutory minimum or grant a new trial. That was pretty much expected. What's odd, however, is the note at the very bottom of that article, concerning the filing that the RIAA made to the court. The RIAA keeps insisting that it just wants to settle the case, but if that's true, it seems weird to then attack Thomas in court again, but that's what the filing seems to do. It suggests that Thomas (despite this whole process) must still be sharing songs and that the court needs to issue an injunction barring her from doing so. While we've said that there appears to be ample evidence that Thomas used file sharing programs (and that she shouldn't have let this case go to trial), it would be quite surprising if anyone had any evidence that she was still doing this. As far as I know, the RIAA has not presented any such evidence at all. Demanding an injunction, then, seems quite strange.

On top of that, the RIAA appears to falsely claim (or the AP reporter misquoted the RIAA) that Thomas "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others through the file-sharing system Kazaa." That may be true, but it certainly was not shown in court at all. The RIAA only named 24 songs she was charged with sharing, and then did not present any evidence that she actually shared any of them with anyone other than the RIAA's own investigators. The claim that she "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others" was not proven at all, and in fact this entire new trial was because the judge originally made the mistake of assuming "making available" meant distribution. It does not. For the RIAA to misstate this point is really quite odd.

Filed Under: constitutional, copyright, file sharing, fine, jammie thomas, lawsuit, music, settlement
Companies: riaa

Jammie Thomas Not Willing To Settle Yet... Acccording To The RIAA

from the bizarre dept

How badly do you think the RIAA wants Jammie Thomas to settle? Since the verdict came down, the organization has done everything it possibly can to distance itself from the $1.92 million verdict against her for file sharing. While willing to play up the ruling itself the organization seems to recognize that the insanity of the $1.92 million doesn't do it any favors. Even the musicians whose music was part of the case are embarrassed by the amount. In an ideal world, the RIAA would love to settle the lawsuit for some lower amount so it can run around touting the "risks" of file sharing without having people laugh outloud when hearing that someone had to pay $1.92 million for potentially sharing 24 songs that could be bought for $1 each.

So, you get a slightly bizarre situation, where it's the RIAA proactively reaching out to Thomas to try to settle the lawsuit -- but so far Thomas apparently isn't interested. I've been saying that I thought she would settle, but the longer this goes on, the more I wonder if she's actually planning to fight on. If so, this could certainly represent a case to examine the statutory rates associated with copyright violations. The verdict seems so out of proportion with the supposed "crime" that it's difficult to see it pass the laugh test. However, there's a halfway decent chance that a court punts on the issue, saying (as the Supreme Court did in the Eldred case) that such questions are up to Congress, rather than the courts. Of course, if the case is to move forward, it would help to have lawyers who have had more than a few weeks to study up on the issues, and who didn't make public pronouncements that were distractions rather than anything related to the actual case.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, jammie thomas, lawsuit, music, settlement
Companies: riaa