Rejet du GBS 2
Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
Since posting my comments on the Google Book Settlement earlier this week, I have followed other commentary as closely as time has allowed.
Access the complete update here.
There’s been much discussion online about Judge Chin’s long-awaited decision to reject the settlement proposed by Google and authors and publishers’ organizations over the Google Books service.
A new project is underway with the stated goal to “make the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity available, free of charge, to all.”
One year ago last February just days before the Google Books Settlement Fairness Hearing, I wrote a blogpost fancifully titled Hurtling Toward the Finish Line: Should the Google Book Settlement Be Approved?
The Director of Kopinor, Yngve Slettholm, and the National Librarian of Norway, Vigdis Moe Skarstein, sign the Bookshelf agreement.
Some scholars and librarians across the country fear it may be, now that a federal judge in New York has derailed ’s bold plan to build the world’s largest digital library and bookstore. With 15 million books scanned, Google had gotten closer to the elusive goal than anyone else. “It is quite disappointing because there isn’t something better in the wings,” said Michael A.
Regarding The Post’s March 28 editorial “ Google Books — unsettled ,” it is indeed true that “an essential piece of any such solution is a body . . . that would be able to search for rights holders, [disburse] funds and oversee collective licensing of copyright works.”
U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin’s Mar. 22 decision may have thwarted Google’s plans to create an online library and bookstore and rejected a $125 million settlement. But it wasn’t enough to deter some of the Internet giant’s partners, including Stanford.
San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily News » Google Books Court Rejection Shows Copyright Litigation Is ExhaustedTime for Congress to Help Pave the Information Highway
Last week, a US judge in Manhattan made a landmark decision. As to what it means, opinions vary.
The Google book settlement — which the search giant signed with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers in 2008, after a dispute over the company’s scanning of books — was struck down by a judge this week as too far-reaching , which is arguably true (although Google would undoubtedly disagree). But the fact that the arrangement has been rejected might not be such a bad thing, because it puts the spotlight back where it should be: on the fact that Google is doing nothing wrong — legally or morally — in scanning books without the permission of the authors or the publishers of those books. Just to recap, Google started scanning books sometime in 2002 , as part of its expressed desire to “index all of the world’s information.”
When it was introduced in 2008, the Google Book Settlement was hailed by its creators as historic.
Le Syndicat national de l'édition se réjouit du rejet par le juge américain Dennis Chin du règlement Google concernant la numérisation de livres à grande échelle. L'entrée en vigueur de ce règlement, rendu public fin 2008 dans le cadre d'une "class action" aux Etats-Unis et révisé fin 2009, était suspendue à cet avis du juge.