http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:11:37 +0000 Jonathan Rochkind [Visitor] c75587@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ "Can we not charter a redrafting of the settlement's terms with libraries?"<br /> <br /> You can try. How are you going to get the rightsholders to even sit down at the table with you, let alone agree to your terms?<br /> <br /> In the current law, the rightsholders are the rightsholders; we are not. <br /> <br /> There's nothing obligating you to sign on to the Google settlement, it's just one set of terms offered. If a library chooses not to sign it, they're right where they started, and can do (or not do) whatever they could do (or not do) before. Including trying to negotiate a different deal (good luck), or trying to push the bounds of what they may legally do and hope to not end up in court (or win if they do). <br /> <br /> One of the dangers of the Google settlement is that it can potentially seem to lessen what is in fact a crisis of copyright law. It's not the settlement that is in the way of Peter's vision (and so much more)--it's the current state of copyright law. <br /> <br /> It's slowly becoming more apparent to more people that the current copyright regime is broken. No doubt this was part (if only a small part) of the calculation of the rightsholders. Self-regulate lest you be government regulated is a time-honored American tradition. Might the existence of the settlement help blunt the popular demand for copyright reform which is slowly, slowly growing?<br /> <br /> Of course, while this might be bad for us, it's not particular bad for the actual parties to the settlement: Google and the rightsholders. It should be no surprise that Google and the rightsholders worked out a deal that was good for their respective businesses--and in fact, threw in some bones that weren't, like the library access, which to offer credit where it's due Google's pushing probably is responsible for (in part out of PR considerations, perhaps in part out of kind heartedness). <br /> <br /> But I still wonder whatever made libraries think they were going to get any more than that.
You can try. How are you going to get the rightsholders to even sit down at the table with you, let alone agree to your terms?

In the current law, the rightsholders are the rightsholders; we are not.

There's nothing obligating you to sign on to the Google settlement, it's just one set of terms offered. If a library chooses not to sign it, they're right where they started, and can do (or not do) whatever they could do (or not do) before. Including trying to negotiate a different deal (good luck), or trying to push the bounds of what they may legally do and hope to not end up in court (or win if they do).

One of the dangers of the Google settlement is that it can potentially seem to lessen what is in fact a crisis of copyright law. It's not the settlement that is in the way of Peter's vision (and so much more)--it's the current state of copyright law.

It's slowly becoming more apparent to more people that the current copyright regime is broken. No doubt this was part (if only a small part) of the calculation of the rightsholders. Self-regulate lest you be government regulated is a time-honored American tradition. Might the existence of the settlement help blunt the popular demand for copyright reform which is slowly, slowly growing?

Of course, while this might be bad for us, it's not particular bad for the actual parties to the settlement: Google and the rightsholders. It should be no surprise that Google and the rightsholders worked out a deal that was good for their respective businesses--and in fact, threw in some bones that weren't, like the library access, which to offer credit where it's due Google's pushing probably is responsible for (in part out of PR considerations, perhaps in part out of kind heartedness).

But I still wonder whatever made libraries think they were going to get any more than that.]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain#c75587