ASJA: The American Society of Journalists and Authors
We Write What You Read
ASJA on Social Media
American Society of Journalists and Authors
ASJA calls amended Google settlement "fundamentally unfair to writers"
New York, NY: February 18, 2010 – The American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA), the professional association of indepdendent nonfiction writers, says the Google Book settlement is fundamentally flawed because it lumps authors and publishers together when they traditionally have been on opposite sides of the negotiating table.
"It's no accident that the publishers' groups that support this settlement greatly outnumber the few writers' organizations in favor of it," says ASJA president Salley Shannon. "The Department of Justice itself said that the settlement is biased in favor of publishers."
[In its first filing with the court, the DOJ said "The Registry is effectively controlled by large commercial publishers." Page 22, DOJ filing on 9/18/2009.]
Writers also note that the very publishers who negotiated this settlement took care to make sure they are not bound by the terms of it. The DOJ said the same thing. Major publishing houses have made arrangements with Google outside the terms of this settlement. They are protected from the uncertainties of the agreement.
The laudable chance that some out-of-print books will be available for research and, possibly, digital sales, must not be an excuse to trample the rights of millions of the people who wrote the books – whether individual authors can be located or not.
ASJA represents some 1,500 professional freelance writers. Along with the National Writers Union and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, plus the many disparate groups that form the Open Book Alliance, it is fighting this settlement.
Watch the Google Book Settlement Workshop from January 20, 2010
The parties in Authors Guild, et al. v. Google Inc. announced a settlement of the litigation in October 2008 and sent out a Notice of that settlement (the "Original Settlement"). The parties have now amended the Original Settlement in response to discussions with the United States Department of Justice and objections to the Original Settlement (the "Amended Settlement"). The Amended Settlement Agreement ("ASA"), as well as the original Settlement Agreement and the original Notice, may be found at http://www.googlebooksettlement.com or obtained from the Settlement Administrator, using the contact information on page 6. Click here for a longer notice on how the ASA might affect you.
New analysis of the amended google settlement
James Grimmelmann of the New York Law School and law students who have been following the Google book search and settlement now have written a 28-page evaluation of the amended settlement proposal. It names 76 specific issues/ objections with an example of each -- how magazines are not supposed to be in the settlement, but Google has scanned them and included them anyway is one such. Grimmelman and friends do not take sides or make evaluations; it's an informed, interesting list. Note: So long as you make proper attribution, the white paper may be downloaded, copied and shared.
We were right! Justice Dept. rips into Google settlement (DOC file)
Justice Department's Google settlement comments pull no punches
ASJA Joins the OPEN BOOK ALLIANCE
In opposition to the Google settlement
ASJA has joined with a wide variety of other groups, including libraries, writers, legal experts, rights activists and corporations in the Open Book Alliance, founded by attorney Gary Reback and Peter Brantley of the Internet Archive. Alliance members do not necessarily agree with all the reasons a particular member may be fighting the Google settlement, but we each have agreed to contact the court about our concerns and to join forces in publicizing the proposed settlement's flaws.
The Alliance website is here: www.openbookalliance.org
FTC: Google Books Raises Privacy Fears
By Andrew Noyes, Congress Today
September 8, 2009 -- FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz on Thursday expressed concern about Google's plan to digitize mass quantities of books, saying it "raises serious privacy challenges because of the vast amount of user information that could be collected." He said he was pleased that Google is taking steps to protect the privacy of Google Books users and noted that the Commission will have an ongoing dialogue with Google and others to ensure consumer privacy is protected when new technologies emerge. "As Google Books evolves we'll work to ensure that the privacy of online readers is fact, not fiction," he said in a statement.
Google recently told the FTC that users of Google Books are not and will not be required to have a Google account or register with Google to use most features although an account will be required to access books that a user has purchased. The application will also adhere to Google's existing privacy policy governing how it handles consumer data. Under that policy, Google only shares "personal information" when the consumer tells Google to do so or in certain other narrow circumstances. Google is also in the process of creating a specialized privacy policy specific to Google Books.
The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to examine "competition and commerce in digital books" next Thursday and a New York federal court has scheduled a fairness hearing for Oct. 7 on the $125 million settlement Google reached in a feud with authors and publishers. The Open Book Alliance says Google's response to the FTC "essentially boils down to this - trust us."
Documents filed with the court
Click here for the ASJA page listing various documents filed with the court
How to object to the Google book settlement
You must be the author of a book (or part of a book, such as a chapter in an anthology) published before Sept. 5, 2009. You must not have "opted out." (That means you no longer have "standing" in the matter.) You may state your objections in a simple letter; no legal language necessary. In fact, it is better to be plain-spoken. If you are worried about what this, and upset because it's so difficult to understand, etc., it's good for Judge Denny Chin to hear that.
You can see copies of letters people have written here:
thepublicindex.org/documents/responses
Note: We can't e-mail our objection letters to the court; they must go snail mail. (That is, unless you have registered with the PACER system and have your own password. If you do, look for instructions on the Court Clerk's page, US District Court of the Southern District of Manhattan.)
- Write your letter. You are writing to the Honorable Denny Chin. It must be marked with the case number at the top of the page: No.05 CV8136. Below that, put the case name: The Authors Guild Inc., Association of American Publishers et al Plaintiffs v Google Inc., Defendent. From there on, it becomes a normal letter.
- Then you snail mail it to the court postmarked no later than 10 a.m. Sept, 8, 2009. Send it to:
Office of the Clerk
J. Michael McMahon
US District Court for the Southern District of Manhattan
500 Pearl Street
NY, NY 1007 - You also must e-mail a copy to the AG's attorney and one to Google's attorney.
- The first e-mail (AG's attorney) goes to: bookclaims@bonizack.com
- Send another e-mail of your letter to Google's counsel: bookclaims@durietangri.com
If you have any questions, see page 26 of the notice document:
www.googlebooksettlement.com/notice.html
FACT versus FICTION about the proposed Google Settlement
- FICTION: The proposed settlement agreement merely resolves private litigation between private parties, which is a good thing.
- FACT: The deal far exceeds the bounds of a typical legal settlement. It would tread directly on Congress' territory, privatizing important copyright and public policy decisions historically made by Congress. It abuses class action procedure to create an exclusive joint venture between Google, the American Association of Publishers (AAP) and the Authors' Guild, strengthening Google's dominance in search and creating a cartel for the sale of digitized books. It would bind nearly every copyright owner of every book published before 2009 throughout the world, and thus create, as the U.S. Register of Copyrights said, "a compulsory license for the benefit of one company."
- FICTION: Google is paying copyright owners an enormous sum of $125 million for the use of their books.
- FACTION: In fact, the deal would give a handful of lawyers involved $45 million, the same amount that will be spread in small amounts to the millions of copyright owners whose books were copied by Google. Authors and publishers would get only 1/3 of Google's outlay, paid at $60 per book only if Google has already scanned the book into its database. Google would pay nothing under the settlement for any scanning done after January 2009.
See the entire fact versus fiction document on the Open Book Alliance site.
About privacy rights, one of ASJA's main concerns:
"Under its current design, Google Book Search keeps track of what books readers search for and browse, what books they read, and even what they 'write' down in the margins. Given the long and troubling history of government and third-party efforts to compel libraries and booksellers to turn over records about readers, it is essential that Google Books incorporate strong privacy protections in both the architecture and policies of Google Book Search. Without these, Google Books could become a one-stop shop for government and civil litigant fishing expeditions into the private lives of Americans."--Letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt from Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and University of California Berkeley Lecturer, July 23, 2009
Google settlement opt in/out Date is September 4, 2009.
On September 2, 2009 NPR's "All Things Considered" ran a story that has left people confused about the opt-in/ opt-out deadline for the Google book settlement, which is coming up fast: Friday, September 4, 2009.
September 4, 2009 is also the date on which those who plan to file objections must get them to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. By happenstance there is a regularly scheduled maintenance period on the court's electronic filing system slated for this Friday. It will be down after about 11 a.m. Therefore the court sent out a notice late on Sept. 2 saying the filing deadline had been extended until Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 10 a.m. Eastern. The change affects ONLY the court filings -- the opt in/opt out stuff goes to a different site.
The NPR reporter heard about the court extension and mistakenly ended her story with "writers have until September 8, 2009 to make a decision." NOT SO. The story was revised for the West Coast version of the broadcast, which correctly stated the opt-in/opt-out date still is September 4, 2009. The story also is now correct on the NPR website. -- Salley Shannon, ASJA president, September 2, 2009
For full text of ASJA's statement, click here
PLEASE SEE LINKS IMMEDIATELY BELOW FOR ADDITONAL INFORMATION
Forbes.com on the surprising things Google and a burglar have in common
Update to the William Morris letter of opposition
The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement Excerpt below (emphasis added):
by Pamela Samuelson / August 10, 2009
. . . So why did Google decide to settle instead of to fight? Inspired perhaps by Rahm Emanuel, who has observed "you never want a serious crisis go to waste," Google recognized that AAP and the Guild would be willing to settle their lawsuits by vastly expanding the plaintiff class to all persons with a U.S. copyright interest in one or more books. The settlement could then give Google a license to commercialize all books owned by the class.
Why would AAP and the Guild be willing to do this? It is largely because the agreement designates the Authors Guild as the representative of the author subclass and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) as the representative of the publisher subclass. This designation ensures that they will have vastly expanded responsibilities and powers to control the market for digital books . . . .
...However, much larger questions call into question whether the settlement should be approved. One is whether the Authors Guild and AAP fairly represented the interests of all authors and publishers of in-copyright books during the negotiations that led up to the settlement agreement. A second is whether going forward, they and the newly created Registry to which they will give birth will fairly represent the interests of those on whose behalf the Registry will be receiving revenues from Google.
As well-intentioned as they may be, the Authors Guild and AAP have negotiated an agreement that serves the interests of the core members of their organizational constituencies, not the thousands of times larger and more diverse class of authors and publishers of books from all over the world...
The Fight over the Google of All Libraries: A Wired.com FAQ
"It's not just Microsoft balking at Google's book plans" (NY Times technology piece)
"Google book settlement has librarians worried"
The blog of ASJA member Pat McNees is an excellent resource for pro and con of the Google settlement (as well as other copyright issues and work made for hire)
"Legally Speaking: The Dead Souls of the Google Booksearch Settlement" by copyright maven Pamela Samuelson, Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law and Information at UC Berkeley; Samuelson elegantly dices the settlement on a guest blog
A strong analysis by blogger Erik Sherman
To the good: a treasure trove of books
The gist of Samuelson's comments plus others
Librarian Association comments to the court
At a conference on the subject at Columbia, Marybeth Peters, the United States Register of Copyrights, called the agreement a compulsory license for the benefit of one company. More coverage of the Columbia debate is available on the LibraryLawBlog here and here.
The National Writer's Union (NWU) also has joined the Open Book Alliance in opposition to the settlement. Their statement is here.
Authors Guild commentary; Authors Guild Commentary
Washington DC copyright attorney, Joy Butler, has a 10-page outline of the 300-page settlement document; the entire 300-page settlement document is here
If you are trying to figure out what to do, personally, here's a Q and A
Alexandra Owens, ASJA executive director 212-997-0957
Salley Shannon, president, 301-740-2819/cell 704-649-7300
Russell Wild, former president and board member, 610-530-0078
New York, August 17, 2009
American Society of Journalists and Authors joins groundswell of opposition to Google Book Settlement
The board of the American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA), nonfiction freelance writers, has voted to oppose the class action settlement in Authors Guild v Google. Approval of the settlement plan currently is pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The freelance writers' group is not asking the court to scrap the entire settlement document. Rather, it will ask the court to direct changes in specific sections.
"We commend our friends in the Authors Guild for suing Google, and for the thoughtful way much of this settlement is crafted," says ASJA president Salley Shannon. "That said, representation in both the writer and publisher classes needs broadening."
The ASJA, which has always fought for First Amendment rights, is particularly concerned that the settlement does not contain language forbidding Google to censor which books and authors will be in the Book Search database, and that some provisions effectively revise copyright law.
"If we have all learned one thing in the past year, isn't it that it is foolhardy to trust any corporation to regulate itself?" Shannon said.
ASJA believes present representation for both writers and publishers on the Books Rights Registry is ludicrously narrow. The proposed settlement has the registry overseeing payout and myriad other matters related to the Book Search database and Google's sale of digital books. It will be a significant player in shaping the publishing industry's digital future; the proposed registry even has a role in setting book prices. When new ideas for digital products pop up in future, the registry would be the sole representative of writers and publishers.
As written, this powerful new entity would always be governed by four publishing representatives, each named by a major publisher, and four writers, all named by the Authors Guild. This seems limited and far too cozy.
More writers need a voice. So do more publishers, especially small publishers and print-on-demand publishers. ASJA suggests increasing the number of representatives overall, or else rotating members on and off the registry, using a wider list of writer organizations and publishers to make appointments.
Some 32 million books are protected by copyright in the United States. They were not all written by members of the Authors Guild or published by McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, the Penguin Group, Simon & Schuster, or John Wiley & Sons. These groups won't be writing or publishing all future books, either. This is a class action suit, and the classes need better representation.
Amend the settlement to include rules that safeguard reader privacy and prevent censorship, ASJA says. "Security" in the settlement document now means protecting Google. There are 17 pages of security provisions, all designed to keep someone from sneaking into Book Search files without paying.
Before they are writers, ASJA members are book-lovers and citizens. The ASJA board believes there simply must be language in the settlement document preventing censorship and limiting how Google can use the data it will collect on who is browsing, reading and buying books. Without it, the possibilities for privacy invasion and for the censorship of a book, an author, or even a whole category of books are chilling -- especially when the corporation will have little or no competition. We all know the strength of Google's algorithms for interpreting online activity. The ads that pop up when we search show it to us daily.
ASJA says, stop the Google-ization of copyright law. Do we really want Google and a committee making law? Essentially, that is what "opt out" requirements in the proposed settlement do.
The ASJA believes that if copyright law needs to be nimbler in this digital age, it still should be Congress calling the plays. We will ask the court to direct the removal of deadlines for opting out of the Book Search. Copyright holders should control their works.
ASJA will ask the court for these and possibly other changes in the settlement's provisions. The board hopes to work with like-minded organizations also seeking specific changes in the settlement's provisions.