Pamela Samuelson
Law Review Articles, Other Papers, Presentations, Briefs, etc. on the Google Book Settlement
Law Review Articles
37) "Legislative Alternatives to the Google Book Settlement", forthcoming in 34 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, (2011)
Now that the court has disapproved the Google Book settlement, it is time to consider the component elements of a legislative package that would achieve most of the social benefits that would have flowed from approval of the settlement without the social harms that the settlement would have brought about. This article is principally focused on how to enable the creation of a digital library of out-of-print books that could be made available to the public on reasonable terms.36) "Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform", forthcoming in Wisconsin Law Review, (2011)
Certain features of U.S. law, particularly copyright law, contributed to Google's willingness to undertake the Google Book Search (GBS) project in the first place and later to its motivation to settle the lawsuit charging Google with copyright infringement for scanning in-copyright books. Approval of this settlement would have achieved several copyright reforms that Congress might find difficult to accomplish, some of which would be in the public interest. The Article considers whether the quasi-legislative nature of the GBS settlement was merely an interesting side effect of the agreement or a reason in favor of or against approval of this settlement.35) "Standing up for Copyright: Marybeth Peters' Response to the Google Book Settlement", 58 J. Cop. Soc'y 75 (2011)
...Although many copyright professionals supported the proposed Google Book settlement, Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters had reservations about it because it seemed to her to violate fundamental principles of copyright law, to be seeking to achieve through litigation changes to legal rules that can only be brought about through legislation, and to pose serious questions about the consistency of the settlement with US international treaty obligations.27) "Is the Proposed Google Book Settlement "Fair"?", 2010-2 AMI: Tijdschrift voor Auteurs, Media & Informatierecht 50, (2010)
This article summarizes the main arguments in favor of approval of the Google Book Settlement and five categories of objections that have been lodged against it. It also explains why I believe the settlement will not be approved by the courts.22) "Academic Author Objections to the Google Book Search Settlement", 8 J. of Telecom. & High Tech. L. 217, (2010)
The vision of a universal digital library that would contain the accumulated knowledge embodied in tens of millions of books from the collections of major research libraries -- a digital library that would last forever -- is unquestionably an inspiring one. While academic authors and researchers can easily understand the appeal of this vision and heartily hope that this vision will be realized, this Article will explain why approval of the PASA is unlikely to fulfill the universal digital library ambition and why academic authors should object to some of its important terms.17) "Google Book Search and the Future of Books in Cyberspace", 94 Minn. L. Rev. 1308 (2010)
This article contrasts the highly optimistic views about the future of books in cyberspace reflected in statements made by Google and other proponents of the Google Book Search settlement with six types of "nightmares" that critics of the proposed settlement have articulated in comments about the deal. It speculates about what would happen to the future of books if the GBS settlement is not approved, and recommends that a publicly sponsored initiative to digitize books from the collections of major research libraries would be highly desirable, especially if it was developed and maintained by a consortium of research libraries.Other Publications
40) "Why the Google Book Settlement Failed - and What Comes Next?", forthcoming in Communications of the ACM, November 2011
This column explains why Judge Chin disapproved the GBS settlement and why the fair use issue may not be decided by the courts. It discusses the possibility of a new settlement and of legislation as alternatives.38) "Overcoming Copyright Obstacles in a Post-Google Book Settlement World", Center for Democracy &Technology, June 15, 2011
Pamela Samuelson provides an overview of "Legislative Alternatives to the Google Book Settlement", her new article in the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts.19) "Last Chance to Opt-Out of Google Book Settlement", The Huffington Post, January 25, 2010
...January 28 is the last day on which owners of copyrights in books published in the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia can opt out or object to the proposed settlement of the Google Book Search (GBS) class action lawsuit initiated in 2005 by the Authors Guild.... For what it's worth, I'm objecting to the settlement, not opting out. Academics like me tend to want as many books as possible to be widely available to the public. The more opt-outs there are, the less likely GBS is to achieve the lofty ambitions of being a universal digital library to make the knowledge in books more accessible to all. My objection is aimed at making the GBS deal fairer for academic authors whose books constitute a substantial majority of books in GBS.14) "Is the Google Book Settlement an Abuse of Class Actions?", The Nation, November 23, 2009.
Google is no more above the law than any other company, no matter how much social benefit one of its projects arguably bestows on society. Its proposed settlement of a copyright lawsuit initially brought by a small number of authors and publishers goes far beyond what class action settlements are supposed to achieve, and is tantamount to private legislation. Private legislation through the GBS class action settlement would set a dangerous precedent and undermine democratic values.13) "New Google Book Settlement Aims Only to Placate Governments", The Huffington Post, November 17, 2009
...Changes were overwhelmingly made to placate the governments of France and Germany, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)... Hundreds of authors, publishers and other interested parties raised dozens of objections to GBS 1.0, but their concerns were almost completely ignored. GBS 2.0, for example, does not address issues raised by academic authors about the risks of price gouging, lack of user privacy protections and restrictions on various uses that can be made of GBS books...12) "The Google Book Settlement: Real Magic or a Trick", The Economists' Voice, November 2009.
Paul Courant characterized the GBS class action settlement as "a magic trick." For Google to get a license to every in-copyright book on the planet for a mere $125 million - $45.5 million of which will go to the lawyers representing the author and publisher subclasses, and $34.5 million to fund BRR's initial operations - by settling this lawsuit does seem like 'magic.'... But the law is not magic and magic is not the law. The GBS settlement contravenes core rule of law principles of our society.10) "Google Books is Not a Library", The Huffington Post, October 14, 2009.
Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is.8) "Google Book Settlement 1.0 Is History", The Huffington Post, September 24, 2009
Version 1.0 of the proposed Google Book Search (GBS) Settlement is history, pushed into the dustbin by hundreds of submissions urging Judge Denny Chin to reject it, none more devastating than the one filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)7) "DOJ Says No to Google Book Settlement", The Huffington Post, September 20, 2009
Although DOJ recognized that the public would benefit from greater access to books if the settlement was approved, it has concluded that the agreement in its current form does not satisfy legal requirements.4) "Why is the Antitrust Division Investigating the Google Book Search Settlement?", The Huffington Post, August 19, 2009
Antitrust critics of the settlement have expressed concern about the "monopoly" that Google will have over orphan books.3) "The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement", The Huffington Post, August 10, 2009
Sorry, Kindle. The Google Book Search settlement will be, if approved, the most significant book industry development in the modern era...This settlement will transform the future of the book industry and of public access to the cultural heritage of mankind embodied in books1) "The Dead Souls of the Google Booksearch Settlement", O'Reilly Radar, April 17, 2009 (pre-print from Communications of the ACM, July 2009)
The Book Search agreement under consideration is not really a settlement of a dispute over whether scanning books to index them is fair use. It is a massive restructuring of the book industry's future without meaningful government oversight. The market for digitized orphan books could be competitive, but will not be if this settlement is approved in its current form without modification.Submissions and Presentations to the Court
24) "Transcript of the Fairness Hearing", February 18, 2010
Pamela Samuelson's Statement is pages 54-59.20) "Supplemental Objection of Academic Authors to Google Book Settlement", Letter to Judge Denny Chin, January 27, 2010
After a brief overview of the Google Book Search litigation and the proposed settlement, this talk considers a range of objections that have been raised to the proposed settlement, with especial attention to the impacts of the proposed settlement for academic authors.15) "Pamela Samuelson's Letters to the Court: Concerns on the Proposed Google Book Settlement", 12 Tulane J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 185 (2009)
The letter I sent to Judge Chin in April 2009 explaining why the court should grant an extension of time to allow greater deliberation among academics about the implications of the settlement for them, as well as the first objection letter filed with the court on behalf academic authors whose interests were not well represented by the Authors Guild in negotiating the settlement; the objection letter requests several changes to GBS terms that would make it more consistent with academic norms6) "Academic Author Objections to the Google Book Search Settlement", Letter to Judge Denny Chin, September 3, 2009
The signatories of this letter are academic authors who object to the Google Book Search Settlement on the grounds that the Authors Guild and the named individual author plaintiffs did not adequately and fairly represent the interests of academic authors during the litigation and the negotiations that produced this agreementLectures and Presentations
39) "Pamela Samuelson on codifying the Google Books settlement", podcast at Surprisingly Free, June 28, 2011
Pamela Samuelson discusses "Legislative Alternatives to the Google Book Settlement", her new article in the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. Samuelson discusses the settlement, which was ultimately rejected, and highlights what she deems to be positive aspects. One aspect includes making out-of-print works available to a broad audience while keeping transaction costs low. Samuelson suggests encompassing these aspects into legislative reform. The goal of such reform would strike a balance that benefits rights holders, as well as the general public, while generating competition through implementation of a licensing scheme..34) "Why the Google Book Settlement Failed - And What Comes Next?", Dean's Lecture at UC Berkeley School of Information, April 13, 2011
More than a year after the Google Book Settlement fairness hearing, Judge Chin ruled that the settlement was not fair and could not be approved. This talk will explain why I think the failure of this settlement was inevitable. It will also discuss the options available after the failure of the settlement and why some of these options are more likely or desirable than others.33) "Why the Google Book Settlement Failed - And What Comes Next?", Technology, Society and Public Policy Lecture at Rice University, April 4, 2011
More than a year after the Google Book Settlement fairness hearing, Judge Chin ruled that the settlement was not fair and could not be approved. This talk will explain why I think the failure of this settlement was inevitable. It will also discuss the options available after the failure of the settlement and why some of these options are more likely or desirable than others.32) "Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform, boalt.org lecture at UC Berkeley Law School, February 28, 2011
Approval of the Google Book settlement would achieve copyright reform in a number of respects. While most of these reforms are socially desirable, this talk explains why legislation is a more appropriate way to accomplish this objective than a class action settlement.31) "Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform, Intergenerational Equity and Intellectual Property Symposium at University of Wisconsin Law School, November 13, 2010
Approval of the Google Book settlement would achieve copyright reform in a number of respects. While most of these reforms are socially desirable, this talk explains why legislation is a more appropriate way to accomplish this objective than a class action settlement.30) "Is the Google Book Settlement the Copyright Reform we Need?", Lecture at UC Davis Law School, October 14, 2010
Approval of the Google Book settlement would achieve copyright reform in a number of respects. While most of these reforms are socially desirable, this talk explains why legislation is a more appropriate way to accomplish this objective than a class action settlement.29) "Copyright and Other Legal Issues Posed by Google Book Search", short course at IVIR Amsterdam, July 9, 2010
This slide deck represents notes about the Google Book Settlement presented at a summer course sponsored by the Information Law Institute of the University of Amsterdam. After an overview of the issues in litigation in the Authors Guild v. Google lawsuit and of the settlement, this talk covers arguments in favor of and against the settlement. It discusses the choices Judge Chin will need to make in deciding whether to approve or disapprove the settlement and some international implications.28) "Google Book Settlement: Brilliant but Evil?", Cisco Distinguished Lecture, May 13, 2010
The GBS is one of the most significant developments in copyright and class actions for decades. Even if the settlement isn't approved, GBS has dramatically changed the landscape in the US and abroad. Many aspects of the settlement agreement are brilliant, but other aspects are deeply troubling, maybe even evil. Is it possible to get the good parts while averting the evil?26) "Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform", presentation at University of Michigan School of Information, February 25, 2010
This talk explains why certain dysfunctional aspects of U.S. copyright law contributed both to the Google Book Search project and to the settlement of the Authors Guild lawsuit, and why the proposed settlement would achieve some copyright reform, although at a cost that may not be worth paying.25) "Google Book Search and the Future of Books in Cyberspace", presentation at University of Michigan Law School "IP Scholarship" Seminar , February 24, 2010
This talk responds to student comments on "Google Book Search and the Future of Books in Cyberspace." It discusses the evolution of my thinking about the Google Book Search and reasons why I do not believe the "anyone can do what we did" mantra that Google recites whenever people suggest that approval of the settlement would result in Google's having monopoly power over a massive number of books.23) "How Fair is the Google Book Settlement?", Presentation at the Conference on the Amended Google Book Settlement, The Institute for European Legal Studies, University of Liege, Belgium, February 12, 2010
The fairness of the Google Book Search settlement is soon to be decided by Judge Denny Chin. The settlement is the least fair to non-Anglophone rights holders because their interests were not well-represented during the negotiations leading up to the settlement and because they got inadequate notice about the settlement. After explaining the litigants motivations for settling the Google Book case, the talk explains why many US rights holders, including academic authors, believe that the Google Book settlement is not fair or reasonable as to them.21) "Google Book Search & the Future of Access to Books", Presentation at the UC Berkeley Townsend Center for the Humanities, February 8, 2010 (Presentation slides)
After a brief overview of the Google Book Search litigation and the proposed settlement, this talk considers a range of objections that have been raised to the proposed settlement, with especial attention to the impacts of the proposed settlement for academic authors.18) "Should Authors Opt-out or Object to GBSS?", presentation at NWU meeting in Berkeley, CA, January 22, 2010 (Audio recording)
16) "Google Book Settlement as Private Copyright Reform", presentation at Copyright Culture, Copyright History conference, January 6, 2010.
This talk explains why the Google Book Search settlement is tantamount to copyright legislation and represents an effort to reform copyright law to overcome difficulties in achieving well-balanced copyright legislation, such as that affecting orphan works. Notwithstanding some benefits that would come from approval of this settlement, there are reasons to doubt whether such a substantial reordering of copyright default rules can or should be accomplished through the class action settlement process.11) "Lecture in Professor Terry Winograd's "Human-Computer Interaction" Seminar, Stanford University, October 30, 2009.
[Select "Free Seminars," "Computer Science," and Lecture 6 in "Human-Computer Interaction Seminar" with instructor "Terry Winograd"]9) "Keynote Conversation with Paul Courant at 'D' is for 'Digitize' Conference", New York Law School, October 9, 2009.
Pam Samuelson responds to arguments by Paul Courant (University of Michigan Librarian) in favor of Google Book Search Settlement.5) "The Google Books Settlement and the Future of Information Access", University of California (Berkeley) School of Information , August 28, 2009
Video recording of the full conference. (Pam Samuelson is the moderator of the session "Public Access and the Google Books Settlement").2) "Reflections on the Google Book Search Settlement", OCLC/Kilgour Lecture at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC, April 22, 2009 (Presentation slides)
Send feedback regarding this page to: pam@law.berkeley.edu
Last Modified: 7 July 2011