NATIONAL WRITERS UNION CALLS FOR RENEWED ACTION TO PROTECT WRITERS’ RIGHTS FOLLOWING REJECTION OF GOOGLE BOOK SETTLEMENT NEW YORK CITY: March 23, 2011 – “Judge Chin’s decision that the Google Book Settlement was ‘not fair, adequate and reasonable’ gives the National Writers Union even more reason to pursue other means through Congress and the courts to protect and affirm writers’ rights against this sort of corporate infringement,” declared Larry Goldbetter, president of the NWU, the union of freelance writers. “Because writers’ copyright inflingement claims against Google have yet to be resolved, the NWU calls on Google to stop scanning without permission — now.”

Continue reading

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

Dear Friends,

I first became aware of  the New-York based National Writers’ Union (NWU) during our recent battle against the Google Book Settlement. Unlike our  Canadian unions — and the American Authors’ Guild, which brokered the Google deal — the NWU spoke up bitingly against the GBS, demonstrating an inspirational level of leadership on behalf of its members. Continue reading

Here’s a new post from guest blogger, David Bolt:

Debunking the latest Google fictions …

Fiction #1. I’m going to get $60 a book.
In your dreams.  Note that it’s (US)$60 per book to “the rightsholder”.  How that gets split between authors and publishers remains to be determined.

And if the book is deemed “in print” (many US publishers say all their
backlist is now in print forever because they are making it available in
POD or e-book format), the $60 is paid to the publisher.  It’s up to the
publisher to decide how much, if any, to pass on to the author(s),
according to the split specified in the author-publisher contract (which
of course probably didn’t provide for such a situation).

Even if authors believe that they own the electronic rights 100%, I think
the best they can hope for with most publishers is for the $60 to be
treated under the subsidiary rights clause, with a typical 50/50 split, or
US$30 per book for the authors.  More likely publishers will treat the $60
under the book royalty clause, and send the authors US$6-9 per book. To
get any better split, authors will have to take publishers to arbitration
or (maybe, if they can get past the arbitration clause) to court.
Continue reading

David Bolt is a distinguished Canadian actor and playwright, active for over 40 years in Canadian theatre. He has been closely following the Google Book Settlement and its possible implications for Canadian creators. I’ve invited him to contribute his analysis of the international response to Google’s case, now before the U.S. court.

Bolt is one of a tiny handful of Canadian writers speaking up publicly against the Google Settlement. He was interviewed about Google in this week’s issue of ‘Tandem’, (Corriere Canadese’s English-language supplement.)

A Canadian’s Perspective

Sarah — Since Canadian papers are not covering the Frankfurt Book Fair, I thought your blog readers might be interested to know what is going on there.
The first big item for discussion is the Google Settlement.  Europeans don’t like this thing at all and the German government (in the person of Chancellor Angela Merkel) kicked the whole thing off by announcing “We reject the scanning in of books without any copyright protection, like Google is doing. The government places a lot of weight on this position on copyrights to protect writers in Germany.”

Continue reading