| | |
|
RyanSongFirstPaper 5 - 28 Mar 2010 - Main.RyanSong
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | History of The Google Book Settlement | |
<
< | In 2004, Google released the Google Book Library Project. Essentially, Google partnered with libraries and publishers to digitalize books and make the scanned images of book pages searchable online. In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers brought class action copyright infringement lawsuits against Google for digitalizing copyrighted works without permission. Without resolving whether Google’s practice was defendable on the ground of the fair use doctrine, the parties reached a settlement. | >
> | In 2004, Google created the Google Book Library Project, a partnership between Google, several university libraries and numerous publishers to scan book pages and make the scanned image searchable online. In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers brought copyright infringement lawsuits against Google for digitalizing copyrighted works without permission. Without resolving whether Google’s practice satisfied the fair use doctrine, the parties settled. | | | | |
<
< | In October 2008, the initial draft of the Settlement required Google to pay $125 million in damages. $34.5 million of the damage would go toward the funding of the Book Rights Registry (“Registry”), a collective copyrights organization that would act as the middleman to collect revenues from Google and distribute them to the copyrights holders. The settlement also included several revenue models: institutional subscription for colleges and universities; the consumer perpetual access to individual books; and various others. The settlement is pending approval by the court. | >
> | In October 2008, the initial draft of the Settlement required Google to pay $125 million in damages. $34.5 million of the damage would fund the Book Rights Registry (“Registry”), a collective copyrights organization that would act as the middleman to collect revenues from Google and distribute them to the copyrights holders. The settlement also included several revenue models: institutional subscription for colleges and universities; the consumer perpetual access to individual books; and various others. The settlement is pending approval by the court. | | |
The Orphan Work Problem | |
<
< | Among the books covered by the Settlement, one particular category of books, known as orphan works, presents a unique legal challenge. The orphan books are essentially “abandoned book” which are still in-copyright, but the copyright holder cannot be reached to secure a license. Large volumes of such books are rotting on the shelves of libraries because people do not want to risk potential copyright infringement litigations. The 1976 Copyright Act has exacerbated the problem of orphan works because it permits automatic attachment of copyright without registration and longer duration for the copyrights once attached. | >
> | One particular category of books covered under the Settlement, known as orphan works, presents a unique legal challenge. The orphan books are essentially “abandoned book” which are still in-copyright, but it is impossible or too difficult to reach the copyright holders to secure a license. Many of the books are rotting on the shelves of libraries because people do not want to risk potential copyright infringement litigations. The 1976 Copyright Act exacerbated the problem of orphan works because it permitted automatic attachment of copyright without registration and longer duration for the copyrights once attached. | | | | |
<
< | A workable solution to resolve the orphan work problem should reduce the inefficiency of the public in using the orphan works, and at the same time protect the existing copyright holders from potential exploitation. The two important policies here are the incentives for innovation and the efficiency for maximizing the usefulness of the orphan works. Maximum efficiency of the copyrights is achieved where the copyrights go to the parties who value them the most. What reduces efficiency in the case of orphan works is the transaction cost: the total cost of locating the copyright holders and bargaining for an exchange of the right. | >
> | A workable solution to resolve the orphan work problem should maximize the usefulness of the orphan works, and at the same time promote creativity and innovation. What reduces efficiency in the case of orphan works is the transaction cost: the total cost of locating the copyright holders and bargaining for an exchange of the right. | | | The current copyright law adopts a “property rule”. A user must obtain permission first before using the copyrighted material. An alternative to the property rule is the “liability rule” which allows the public to use the material without fear of infringing anyone’s right; then the copyright holders can be compensated later when they assert their rights. The property rule is inferior to the liability rule because it is prohibitively expensive and difficult, if not impossible, to find the copyright holders of orphan works. For the law to incentivize innovation and creativity, we should allow the public to use the orphan works and encourage the copyright holders to show themselves. Once they can obtain some benefits from their works, they will be encouraged to invest more time and efforts in writing. The liability rule also reduces transaction cost in searching the copyright holders because it encourages the copyright holders to show up and claim their rights. The issue with the liability rule is the potential for exploitation and infringement of copyrighted materials. |
|
| Revision 5 | r5 - 28 Mar 2010 - 03:57:45 - RyanSong |
| Revision 4 | r4 - 26 Feb 2010 - 21:58:35 - RyanSong |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |