New Google Book Pact Unlikely to End Flap
November 16th, 2009Google Inc. and two author and publisher groups submitted a modified version of a controversial settlement over digital books, but it appears likely the fight over the agreement will continue.rnThe revised pact Jordan 7 submitted late Friday would allow Google to distribute millions of digital books online, but would cut the number of works covered by the settlement by at least half by removing millions of foreign works. rnYet the issue of whether it is fair for the settlement to let Google distribute books whose legal rights owners haven’t been identified—known as orphan works—is still drawing criticism. rnPeople familiar with the matter say the Justice Department remains concerned that the fact the settlement gives Google immunity from lawsuits related to orphan works may be anticompetitive. The department is expected to file its reaction to the modified agreement by early next year.rnA spokeswoman for the Justice Department said the department is reviewing the revised agreement and its investigation into the settlement is “ongoing.”rnGoogle, the Authors Jordan 8 Guild and the Association of American Publishers designed the revised settlement to mollify the Justice Department and other critics who blasted the original settlement as overly broad and anticompetitive. Under that settlement, announced in Oct. 2008, Google would gain permission to distribute and sell millions of digital books online in exchange for sharing revenue with rights holders. rnThe new settlement keeps the same structure, but makes a number of changes, including adding more pricing options to address concerns about potential price-fixing and clarifying what sort of services Google can offer related to digital books. rnIt also aims to address some of the concerns about orphan works by establishing an independent fiduciary to look out for the interests of those rights holders and specifying that revenue collected from those works won’t flow back to other rights holders—a move aimed at addressing criticism from the Justice Department.rnThe modifications were defended by Richard Sarnoff, co-chairman of Bertelsmann Inc., a holding company of publisher Bertelsmann AG, who Jordan 9 negotiated the settlement. He said the parties addressed the competitive concerns around orphans by writing into the settlement that Google must act as a reseller of those works to any third party. Google had previously announced its intention to do so.rn”This settlement won’t determine the digital future of publishing,” Mr. Sarnoff said. “It’s about reclaiming publishing’s past in a way that would be impossible to do in the U.S. in any other manner. And it will benefit scholars, readers, and the rights holders of these books.”rnBut critics say the move doesn’t resolve one of their main concerns: that the agreement gives Google exclusive immunity from lawsuits from unknown rights holders. rnThe notion that the company could distribute those works without the threat of getting sued by rights holders has drawn heat from a broad group of critics, including Google competitors such as Amazon.com Inc., which argue it would be risky to invest in scanning books without a promise of similar immunity.rn”I don’t see how this fixes anything about orphans,” said Gary Reback, an antitrust lawyer who co-founded a group of companies and organizations including Amazon and Microsoft Corp. that is fighting the settlement, in an interview Sunday. rnGoogle Books Engineering Director Dan Clancy said Sunday the parties felt it was beyond the scope of their class-action suit to devise a solution for licensing Jordan 10 all orphan works, and they continue to believe Congress should resolve the issue. rn”We are not asserting that because we created the fiduciary we solved that problem,” he said. U.S. District Judge Denny Chin in New York is expected this week to set a timetable for objections to the pact’s revisions. Judge Chin is expected to this week lay out a timetable for parties to object to the changes and set a hearing date, which has been pending for years.rnAs part of the revised settlement, the parties proposed setting a hearing around mid-Februaryrnhttp://blo9s.com/cheapnfljerseysrnhttp://jiayou1224.bloggum.comrnhttp://jiayou1224.baidu.ws/rnhttp://www.feedmode.com/jiayou1224rnhttp://blogomonster.com/jiayou1224/rn







