Writers' Roundup

This column is by guest blogger David Bolt, a driving force behind CWAG (Canadian Writers Against Google Settlement) and instrumental in filing CWAG’s Objection Brief with Judge Chin’s Fairness Hearing.

Notes on acronyms: TWUC = The Writers’ Union of Canada. The amended settlement’s acronym is ASA (Amended Settlement Agreement.) For simplicity we will refer to all versions as the Google Book Settlement (GBS).

WHAT TWUC SAID versus WHAT THE COURT DECIDED

I took a quick look at Judge Denny Chin’s judgment, alongside TWUC’s objections, and found that TWUC did not have much to do with his decision.  Our brief, on the other hand, did.   Here are the three documents:

Chin: http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/opinion.pdf

TWUC: http://thepublicindex.org/docs/objections/wuc.pdf

CWAG: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/961/

So, let us remind ourselves of TWUC’s official views of the Google Book Settlement,  compared with what Judge Chin thought of it.

Chin was first and foremost concerned that the GBS would create a virtual online publishing monopoly that would exclude competition.  He cited the anti-trust objections of the Department of Justice.  At the very least, he pointed out that the settlement  “would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission.”  TWUC was silent on this.

Chin concluded that the settlement “is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation.”  TWUC, however, wrote: ““We do object to certain aspects of the settlement, and request that it be modified to address these issues”.  In other words, TWUC never questioned the fundamental legitimacy of the settlement. Continue reading

CANADIANS FILE ANTI-GOOGLE OBJECTION

February 1, 2010 –  They’re angry, and they’re putting their well-chosen words into action. Represented by eminent copyright lawyer David Fewer, Director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa, a group of Canadian writers has filed a comprehensive legal objection to the Google Books Settlement with a US court in New York. The Canadian objection joins scores of others filed by three US writers’ organizations, other interested public policy groups, and individuals. The court will decide the settlement’s fate on February 18.

The objection grows out of a petition launched on New Year’s Day, in which the writers’ group called the settlement “an assault on international copyright law” and “theft of a cultural heritage.”  To date, the petition has accumulated over 500 signatures from Canadian authors outraged at Google’s attempt to foist a meaningless settlement on them after digitizing their work for commercial use without permission. One of the writers behind the petition is Katherine Gordon, a former contracts lawyer.  She notes, “The legal flaws in this appalling deal are so obvious even the U.S. Department of Justice has expressed its objections to it.  We think we have every chance of success in having the settlement rejected.”

The legal brief, prepared by Fewer after discussions with the lead authors, cites concerns ranging from NAFTA and the Berne Convention on copyright, to the special status of Quebec and French language writers.  The objection concludes: “These public policy choices should not be left to private litigants, nor should they be foisted on authors.  Such far-reaching changes should be taken up by domestic legislatures, debated between the users and authors whose legal rights will be affected, and implemented with the legitimacy that comes only from democratic decision-making.”

For the full objection brief, go to my blog post: CWAG files Letter of Objection