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.

Chin did not like the “opt-out” provisions of the settlement, whereby Google has the right use your work unless you ask them not to:  “…many of the concerns raised in the objections would be ameliorated if the (GBS)  were converted from an opt-out settlement to an opt-in settlement.”  While asking for certain concessions regarding the time frame for removing works from view, TWUC did not actively disapprove of the “opt-out” principle in itself.

Chin had very serious questions about the right of the Authors Guild plaintiffs to represent all authors,  and also cited the number of objectors, noting that “the number and vociferousness of the objectors is a factor to consider in weighing reasonableness of proposed settlement”. On the other hand,  TWUC never questioned the right of the Authors Guild to speak for TWUC members.

Chin regarded all of Google’s digitizing as an infringement but most important (as noted above) he concluded that future sales based even on past infringement are not allowable.  On the other hand, TWUC did not object to Google using material digitized before 2009, so its objection to digitizing after that date seems pretty lame to me.   But the point to remember is this:  Chin did not care when the material was digitized, he cared about Google making money off it.

Chin was concerned about objections that the GBS violates international law.  TWUC agreed with that, which seems encouraging at first read-through.  What is not encouraging, however, is that TWUC still wanted to be part of the settlement and to allow the Authors Guild to speak for them.   This is a pretty fundamental contradiction. Chin thought that the problem of orphan works should be dealt with by Congress.  TWUC also had that position, which is good.  However, TWUC did not seem to realize that this would make the GBS into a creature completely unlike itself, and would be tantamount to demanding that the settlement be rejected.  When this suggestion was ignored in GBS 2.0, it should logically have triggered a demand from TWUC to reject the settlement.

TWUC keeps trying to justify its non-position by claiming it wanted its members to have a “choice” about opting in or opting out.  This claim is not true. In at least one letter to members, TWUC found it worthwhile to point out that no members of National Council had opted out, and the impression of TWUC members is that the TWUC executive and council supported the settlement, however reluctantly.  As noted above, Chin regarded the sheer number of objections and opt-outs as significant.   TWUC could easily have tipped the balance and saved us a lot of trouble.

In short, TWUC never demanded rejection of settlement 2.0 (despite the Quill & Quire headline “TWUC rejects amended Google settlement”  http://www.quillandquire.com/google/article.cfm?article_id=11007 All TWUC did was refuse to endorse it.  And that weakly negative stance was invisible to the court.

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