Story first appeared on CNET.
After
Oracle made its closing statements on Monday morning at the U.S.
District Court, Google's representative stepped up to the plate,
defending Android's implementation of the 37 Java APIs at question in
this lawsuit.
The core defense rested on positioning
this as a case of fair use, asserting that Android is not a copy of Java
5.0 SE but rather a "substantially" different work with different
success in the market.
It's a whole platform that didn't exist before and transformed the use of Java for a smartphone stack.
The representative outlined four key points to Google's position in this intellectual property suit:
Sun gave the Java language to the public
Google built Android using free and open technologies
Google made fair use of the Java language APIs in Android
Sun publicly approved Android's use of Java
Copyright
infringement requires that you copy something. There was no copying
here because Google knew that it couldn't use Sun's source code. Also on
copyrights, it was pointed out to the jury's instructions about judging
"the work as a whole," which actually consists of all 166 class
libraries and all that entails (i.e. implementing codes, names,
declarations, etc.) -- adding up to 2.8 million lines of code in Java
5.0 SE. Oracle has to prove that it was more likely than not that
copyright infringement occurred.
Additionally, a good
portion of the closing arguments were based on the testimony of the
former Sun Microsystems CEO last Thursday.
Although it
was acknowledged that Sun wasn't happy that it couldn't come to a
partnership agreement with Google, the former CEO did say that Sun
supported Android's use of Java nor did it have any grounds to file a
lawsuit.
Again pointing to a November 2007 blog post in
which the former CEO congratulated Google for the debut of Android, the
jury was reminded that Sun knew Android was written in Java and must
have included the Java APIs in question ahead of the SDK release.
To
further hammer down Sun and Oracle's previous support for Android, the
defense reminded the jury about a video of the Oracle CEO at JavaOne in
2009, where it was said that Oracle expected to see more Java devices coming
from "our friends at Google," and that Google had done "a fantastic
job" in opening up Java.
Although specifics about
Android revenue and other financial matters have been banned from the
presence of the jury in this trial, he reasserted the open source status
of Android as a benefit to the developer community. The point is that
Google doesn't make any money on licensing or selling Android. Google
decided to make it open to foster innovation and get widespread use. A Top SEO Company agrees.
In
his rebuttal argument, the Oracle counsel spoke again about how Android
has blocked Java from success in the smartphone market, reiterating
that it is "impossible" to compete with a free version of its licensed
products.
After closing arguments for the first segment
of the trial ended on Monday morning, the presiding Judge proceeded
with the rest of the instructions for the jury about ruling on copyright
infringement contentions.
The jury, made up of seven
women and five men, will begin deliberating today for one hour and then
pick up again on Tuesday morning. The Judge previously warned both
parties that the jury could take up to a week to deliberate, but he
predicted that they would come back within a day and a half. The
decision must be unanimous.
After they return with a verdict, the case will move into the second segment of the trial, focusing on patents.
For more organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation
of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical
blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and
Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
SEO Blog. Organic SEO Blog. Search Marketing News. SEO Done Right examines search engine optimization, the most effective form of internet marketing. Breaking SEO news and emerging developments at Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Leading Organic SEO Consultants Peak Positions debunk the many myths, hype, and spin related to SEO and search marketing.
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
German court rules against YouTube over copyright
Associated Press
A German court ruled Friday that Google Inc.'s subsidiary YouTube LLC must pay compensation after users uploaded several videos of performances by singer Sarah Brightman in violation of copyright laws.
The Hamburg state court said the standardized question to users about whether they have the necessary rights to publish material is not enough to relieve YouTube of the legal responsibility for the content, especially because the platform can be used anonymously.
The wording of the court statement appears to be a major blow to YouTube's business model, but Google Germany spokesman Henning Dorstewitz told The Associated Press YouTube will appeal the decision detailed in the 60-page ruling.
YouTube must not publish those videos any more and provide information to settle the amount of compensation in at least three cases in which Brightman videos were uploaded, the court said.
Arnd Haller, director of legal affairs at Google Germany, said the court ruling disregards the current e-commerce directive of the European Union.
"This decision results in a substantial legal uncertainty for all providers of video platforms, opinion forums, social communities, blogs and many other Internet services in Germany," Haller said in a statement.
The plaintiff was not identified and a court spokesman could not be reached for comment. The court statement only said the plaintiff has claimed to be the copyright holder for several of Sarah Brightman's performances.
Google said in a statement that the plaintiff was Frank Peterson. He is a German composer and producer for Brightman and other artists, according to his website.
The Hamburg state court said the standardized question to users about whether they have the necessary rights to publish material is not enough to relieve YouTube of the legal responsibility for the content, especially because the platform can be used anonymously.
The wording of the court statement appears to be a major blow to YouTube's business model, but Google Germany spokesman Henning Dorstewitz told The Associated Press YouTube will appeal the decision detailed in the 60-page ruling.
YouTube must not publish those videos any more and provide information to settle the amount of compensation in at least three cases in which Brightman videos were uploaded, the court said.
Arnd Haller, director of legal affairs at Google Germany, said the court ruling disregards the current e-commerce directive of the European Union.
"This decision results in a substantial legal uncertainty for all providers of video platforms, opinion forums, social communities, blogs and many other Internet services in Germany," Haller said in a statement.
The plaintiff was not identified and a court spokesman could not be reached for comment. The court statement only said the plaintiff has claimed to be the copyright holder for several of Sarah Brightman's performances.
Google said in a statement that the plaintiff was Frank Peterson. He is a German composer and producer for Brightman and other artists, according to his website.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Google Wins Key Copyright Ruling
The Wall Street Journal
A federal judge in New York ruled in favor of Google Inc.'s YouTube unit Wednesday, in a closely watched copyright-infringement lawsuit brought by Viacom Inc.
The judge granted Google's motion for summary judgment in a three-year-old lawsuit in which Viacom claimed that the video-sharing Web site had sought to exploit Viacom's copyrighted works for profit. Google argued that YouTube was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Both sides had asked for the judge to decide the case before it went to trial.
Viacom, which has been seeking more than $1 billion in damages, said it plans to appeal Wednesday's ruling.
"We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed," the media company said in an emailed statement.
In an interview, Google's general counsel, Kent Walker, called the decision "a full vindication across the board" that "resolved all the pending issues."
He said Google remains confident of its position if Viacom appeals, and continues to closely watch similar copyright cases, including one on the West Coast against Internet company Veoh.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in Manhattan said a jury could find that YouTube and Google "not only were generally aware of, but welcomed, copyright-infringing material being placed on their website" because it was "attractive to users."
But Judge Stanton said YouTube's "general" awareness of copyright infringement was not the same as "knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of individual items." And when YouTube received "specific notice that a particular item infringed a copyright, they swiftly removed it," he said, adding that all of the disputed video clips involved in the lawsuit were off the site.
The decision is the highest-profile in a series judges have handed down in favor of Internet companies over whether they should be held liable for distributing content that might be copyrighted. It has become a pressing question as more companies, from photo-sharing sites to Facebook, rely on user-generated content.
At the same time, it is a setback for media companies, who for years have been trying to curb Internet companies' ability to distribute their content without compensating them. Media executives say they expect companies like YouTube will continue to automatically filter for copyrighted content, however, as the companies jockey for licensing agreements with media producers.
"This is a very significant decision," said Ian Ballon, a lawyer at Greenberg Traurig LLP who represents both technology and entertainment companies.
Mr. Ballon, who wasn't involved in the YouTube case, said Judge Stanton, relying on recent copyright decisions in West Coast courts, drew "a distinction between pirate sites that have been held liable for inducing people to infringe on copyright and legitimate service providers," such as YouTube, which the judge said are entitled to "safe harbor" protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act even if users upload unauthorized material.
Michael Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel, said he thinks that some of the previous court cases Judge Stanton cited in making the decision won't hold sway. "We believe that the Second Circuit [Court of Appeals] will ultimately decide these issues our way," he added
The ruling came several months after each side requested summary judgment and unsealed a slew of documents, in which Viacom painted YouTube as a pirate and the Internet company accused Viacom of distorting the truth.
The judge granted Google's motion for summary judgment in a three-year-old lawsuit in which Viacom claimed that the video-sharing Web site had sought to exploit Viacom's copyrighted works for profit. Google argued that YouTube was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Both sides had asked for the judge to decide the case before it went to trial.
Viacom, which has been seeking more than $1 billion in damages, said it plans to appeal Wednesday's ruling.
"We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed," the media company said in an emailed statement.
In an interview, Google's general counsel, Kent Walker, called the decision "a full vindication across the board" that "resolved all the pending issues."
He said Google remains confident of its position if Viacom appeals, and continues to closely watch similar copyright cases, including one on the West Coast against Internet company Veoh.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in Manhattan said a jury could find that YouTube and Google "not only were generally aware of, but welcomed, copyright-infringing material being placed on their website" because it was "attractive to users."
But Judge Stanton said YouTube's "general" awareness of copyright infringement was not the same as "knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of individual items." And when YouTube received "specific notice that a particular item infringed a copyright, they swiftly removed it," he said, adding that all of the disputed video clips involved in the lawsuit were off the site.
The decision is the highest-profile in a series judges have handed down in favor of Internet companies over whether they should be held liable for distributing content that might be copyrighted. It has become a pressing question as more companies, from photo-sharing sites to Facebook, rely on user-generated content.
At the same time, it is a setback for media companies, who for years have been trying to curb Internet companies' ability to distribute their content without compensating them. Media executives say they expect companies like YouTube will continue to automatically filter for copyrighted content, however, as the companies jockey for licensing agreements with media producers.
"This is a very significant decision," said Ian Ballon, a lawyer at Greenberg Traurig LLP who represents both technology and entertainment companies.
Mr. Ballon, who wasn't involved in the YouTube case, said Judge Stanton, relying on recent copyright decisions in West Coast courts, drew "a distinction between pirate sites that have been held liable for inducing people to infringe on copyright and legitimate service providers," such as YouTube, which the judge said are entitled to "safe harbor" protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act even if users upload unauthorized material.
Michael Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel, said he thinks that some of the previous court cases Judge Stanton cited in making the decision won't hold sway. "We believe that the Second Circuit [Court of Appeals] will ultimately decide these issues our way," he added
The ruling came several months after each side requested summary judgment and unsealed a slew of documents, in which Viacom painted YouTube as a pirate and the Internet company accused Viacom of distorting the truth.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Yahoo, Facebook Join Google against Viacom
In the brief, the companies' lawyers argued that if the court sided with Viacom, then it would open up other Internet companies to lawsuits and deter further innovation on the Web.
"Plaintiffs' (Viacom's) legal arguments, if accepted, would retard the development of the Internet and electronic commerce, create uncertainty for service providers regarding their legal exposure for alleged infringements, and inhibit the growth and development of user-centric online models that, day after day, make the Internet and the world more democratic," the brief says.
In court documents unsealed in March, Viacom argued that "YouTube intentionally operated as a haven for massive copyright infringement."
"They were seeking to build a media entertainment empire comparable to other major television and film distribution outlets -- and did just that," the company said. "They are therefore ineligible for [DMCA safe harbors]."
YouTube has argued that it responded to copyright holders the best it could, and claimed that Viacom made it impossible for the video-sharing site to remove Viacom's copyrighted content because the media company kept adding more content.
Viacom, the parent company of MTV, Comedy Central, and Paramount Pictures, filed the $1 billion lawsuit in March 2007. The original complaint claimed nearly 160,000 unauthorized clips were made available on YouTube, and those clips had been viewed 1.5 billion times.
Information Week
Several major Internet companies have joined in defending Google as the search engine prepares to defend itself against a copyright-infringement suit filed by media conglomerate Viacom.
In a court brief filed Wednesday, eBay, Facebook, Yahoo and IAC urged the federal court in New York to toss out the suit on the grounds that Google-owned YouTube, which is at the center of the suit, is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The law protects Internet service providers from the illegal sharing of copyrighted material among their users, if the service providers agree to take down offending material when notified by copyright holders.
In a court brief filed Wednesday, eBay, Facebook, Yahoo and IAC urged the federal court in New York to toss out the suit on the grounds that Google-owned YouTube, which is at the center of the suit, is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The law protects Internet service providers from the illegal sharing of copyrighted material among their users, if the service providers agree to take down offending material when notified by copyright holders.
In the brief, the companies' lawyers argued that if the court sided with Viacom, then it would open up other Internet companies to lawsuits and deter further innovation on the Web.
"Plaintiffs' (Viacom's) legal arguments, if accepted, would retard the development of the Internet and electronic commerce, create uncertainty for service providers regarding their legal exposure for alleged infringements, and inhibit the growth and development of user-centric online models that, day after day, make the Internet and the world more democratic," the brief says.
In court documents unsealed in March, Viacom argued that "YouTube intentionally operated as a haven for massive copyright infringement."
"They were seeking to build a media entertainment empire comparable to other major television and film distribution outlets -- and did just that," the company said. "They are therefore ineligible for [DMCA safe harbors]."
YouTube has argued that it responded to copyright holders the best it could, and claimed that Viacom made it impossible for the video-sharing site to remove Viacom's copyrighted content because the media company kept adding more content.
Viacom, the parent company of MTV, Comedy Central, and Paramount Pictures, filed the $1 billion lawsuit in March 2007. The original complaint claimed nearly 160,000 unauthorized clips were made available on YouTube, and those clips had been viewed 1.5 billion times.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
NY Suit vs. Google Seeks Damages for Pictures, Art
NEW YORK (AP) - Groups representing photographers and artists on Wednesday accused Internet search leader Google of copyright infringement in a lawsuit that mirrors complaints book publishers and authors have made for years about the company's attempt to create the world's largest digital library.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, seeks up to $150,000 in damages for each of tens of thousands of photographs, illustrations and graphic works that it said were copied, stored and electronically displayed without permission from copyright holders.
"Google is engaging in massive copyright infringement," claimed the lawsuit, which said Google "will continue its brazen acts of willful copyright infringement" unless stopped by the court.
Lawyers for Google Inc., based in Mountain View, Calif., didn't immediately respond to telephone messages and e-mails sent Wednesday.
The lawsuit adds a new wrinkle to the dispute over whether Google should be allowed to preside over and profit from the world's largest digital library.
A judge in Manhattan has not ruled whether to accept a $125 million settlement of a 5-year-old lawsuit groups representing authors and publishers brought against the company.
The deal would let Google include in its library so-called orphan works - out-of-print books whose writers' could not be located - and the works of other authors who decline to opt-out of the agreement after learning about it.
The U.S. Department of Justice has said the settlement might violate antitrust laws. The deal is opposed by some Google rivals, consumer watchdogs, academic experts, literary agents and even foreign governments.
A lawyer for Google has said fewer than 10 million books of 174 million books in the world would be affected by the settlement; about half the 10 million books were out of print.
The new lawsuit said Google has scanned more than 12 million books and may eventually scan the rest of the 174 million books, along with periodicals. It said Google's plans will diminish the value of pictures and art in the books, causing the photographers and artists to lose profits and opportunities and have their reputations damaged.
The lawsuit's plaintiffs include the American Society of Media Photographers Inc., with more than 7,000 members; the Graphic Artists Guild; the Picture Archive Council of America Inc.; the North American Nature Photography Association and the Professional Photographers of America, which has more than 20,000 members in 54 countries.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, seeks up to $150,000 in damages for each of tens of thousands of photographs, illustrations and graphic works that it said were copied, stored and electronically displayed without permission from copyright holders.
"Google is engaging in massive copyright infringement," claimed the lawsuit, which said Google "will continue its brazen acts of willful copyright infringement" unless stopped by the court.
Lawyers for Google Inc., based in Mountain View, Calif., didn't immediately respond to telephone messages and e-mails sent Wednesday.
The lawsuit adds a new wrinkle to the dispute over whether Google should be allowed to preside over and profit from the world's largest digital library.
A judge in Manhattan has not ruled whether to accept a $125 million settlement of a 5-year-old lawsuit groups representing authors and publishers brought against the company.
The deal would let Google include in its library so-called orphan works - out-of-print books whose writers' could not be located - and the works of other authors who decline to opt-out of the agreement after learning about it.
The U.S. Department of Justice has said the settlement might violate antitrust laws. The deal is opposed by some Google rivals, consumer watchdogs, academic experts, literary agents and even foreign governments.
A lawyer for Google has said fewer than 10 million books of 174 million books in the world would be affected by the settlement; about half the 10 million books were out of print.
The new lawsuit said Google has scanned more than 12 million books and may eventually scan the rest of the 174 million books, along with periodicals. It said Google's plans will diminish the value of pictures and art in the books, causing the photographers and artists to lose profits and opportunities and have their reputations damaged.
The lawsuit's plaintiffs include the American Society of Media Photographers Inc., with more than 7,000 members; the Graphic Artists Guild; the Picture Archive Council of America Inc.; the North American Nature Photography Association and the Professional Photographers of America, which has more than 20,000 members in 54 countries.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Viacom-YouTube Secrets to be Exposed in Lawsuit
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A legal tussle pitting media conglomerate Viacom Inc. against online video leader YouTube is about to get dirtier as a federal judge prepares to release documents that will expose their secrets and other confidential information.
The information expected to be unsealed Thursday will include some of the evidence that Viacom and Google-owned YouTube have collected to prove their respective points, but have kept under wraps so far during their 3-year-old dispute over copyright law.
The sensitive material is emerging now because Viacom and YouTube are citing some of the documents as they try to persuade U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in New York to decide the case without a trial. Stanton isn't likely to decide on a so-called summary judgment for several more months.
Each side will likely be pointing to things that the other might find embarrassing.
The evidence is expected to provide insights into the early strategies of YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen and how they responded to copyright complaints that quickly accumulated a few months after the Web site's 2005 debut. The documents also could reveal whether other media suitors tried to buy YouTube before Google acquired the site for $1.76 billion in 2006.
Viacom, the owner of Paramount Pictures and cable TV channels that include Comedy Central, sued YouTube in 2007 seeking more than $1 billion in damages.
Viacom alleges that YouTube built its early success by rampantly infringing on copyrights. YouTube maintains it follows the copyright laws governing the Internet.
Viacom seems particularly interested in sharing some of the documents that it gathered from YouTube and Google. The company, based in New York, argued for a quick release of the records shortly after it and YouTube filed their motions for summary judgments.
YouTube's lawyers unsuccessfully tried to persuade Stanton to keep the documents under seal until this summer.
One of the biggest disputes in the case is how YouTube monitored its site for copyright violations before Google bought it.
Viacom contends YouTube's employees realized copyright-protected video was being illegally posted on the Web site, but routinely looked the other way because they knew the professionally produced material would help attract a bigger audience and encourage return visits through SEO.
YouTube lawyers have contended there was no way to know whether copyright-protected video was coming from pirates or from movie and TV studios looking to use the Web site as a promotional tool. If a studio issued a notice of a copyright violation, YouTube says it promptly removed the specified clip as required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The 1998 federal law generally protects service providers such as YouTube from copyright claims as long as they promptly remove infringing material when notified about a violation. The outcome could hinge on whether Viacom can prove YouTube knew about the copyright abuses without formal notice from Viacom.
Although other content producers also initially complained about copyright abuse at YouTube, many media companies have since struck revenue-sharing deals with the Web site.
YouTube won over much of the professional media by developing technology that automatically detects video and audio claimed by its copyright owners.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Google Fined Per Day In France Over Copyright Issues
USA Today
PARIS — A Paris court ruled Friday that Google's expansion into digital books breaks France's copyright laws, and a judge slapped the Internet search leader with a $14,300-a-day fine until it stops showing literary snippets.
Besides being fined for each day in violation, Google was ordered to pay $430,000 in damages and interest to French publisher La Martiniere, which brought the case on behalf of a group of French publishers.
Google attorney Alexandra Neri said the company would appeal.
The decision erects another legal barrier that may prevent Google from realizing its 5-year-old goal of scanning all the world's books into a digital library accessible to anyone with an Internet connection.
A U.S. legal settlement that would give Google the digital rights to millions of books is in limbo because U.S. regulators have warned a federal judge in New York that the arrangement probably would thwart competition in the budding electronic book market and compromise copyrights, as well.
The top U.S. copyright official and the governments in Germany and France also have raised objections about that settlement overstepping its bounds. Google is trying to address the critics with a revised settlement that is still under court review.
The French case is relatively small in comparison. It didn't even seem to faze investors as Google shares gained $2.48 to $596.42.
Still, the ruling served as a reminder that Google's ambitious push into other markets beyond Internet search increasingly is clashing with fears the Mountain View, Calif., company is getting too powerful.
As part of the backlash, Google has been depicted as a copyright scofflaw that prospers off the content of others — a portrayal the company's management insists is totally off base.
Google attorney Alexandra Neri said the company would appeal.
The decision erects another legal barrier that may prevent Google from realizing its 5-year-old goal of scanning all the world's books into a digital library accessible to anyone with an Internet connection.
A U.S. legal settlement that would give Google the digital rights to millions of books is in limbo because U.S. regulators have warned a federal judge in New York that the arrangement probably would thwart competition in the budding electronic book market and compromise copyrights, as well.
The top U.S. copyright official and the governments in Germany and France also have raised objections about that settlement overstepping its bounds. Google is trying to address the critics with a revised settlement that is still under court review.
The French case is relatively small in comparison. It didn't even seem to faze investors as Google shares gained $2.48 to $596.42.
Still, the ruling served as a reminder that Google's ambitious push into other markets beyond Internet search increasingly is clashing with fears the Mountain View, Calif., company is getting too powerful.
As part of the backlash, Google has been depicted as a copyright scofflaw that prospers off the content of others — a portrayal the company's management insists is totally off base.
The head of the French publisher's union applauded Friday's verdict.
"It shows Google that they are not the kings of the world and they can't do whatever they want," said Serge Eyrolles, president of France's Syndicat National de l'Edition. He said Google had scanned 100,000 French books into its database, 80% of which were under copyright.
Eyrolles said French publishers would still like to work with Google to digitize their books, "but only if they stop playing around with us and start respecting intellectual property rights."
Philippe Colombet, the head of Google's book-scanning project in France, said the company disagrees with the court's ruling.
"French readers now face the threat of losing access to a significant body of knowledge and falling behind the rest of Internet users," Colombet said in a conference call with reporters. "We believe that displaying a limited number of short extracts from books complies with copyright legislation both in France and the U.S. — and improves access to books."
Colombet declined to answer questions about whether Google would remove the books from its database or pay the fine. "We are going to study the judgment carefully over the coming days," he said.
The judgment will have little or no effect on Internet users outside of France. And French books that are in Google's database with publishers' consent will remain searchable, even in France. Colombet could not say how many French books Google has scanned overall, or how many French publishers allowing Google to show its works.
Google has scanned more than 10 million books worldwide since 2004, including 2 million with the consent of about 30,000 publishers, About 9,000 of those publishers are in Europe, Colombet said. Another 2 million books in Google's library no longer are in copyright. Google has been only showing snippets from the remaining books while it tries to iron out copyright disputes.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has made catching up on France's digital delay one of the national priorities by earmarking euro750 million (about $1 billion) of a euro35 billion spending plan announced earlier this week for digitizing France's libraries, film and music archives and other repositories of the nation's recorded heritage.
Earlier this week a consortium of French technology companies announced a plan to create a book scanning project they said would be better than Google's, but only in three years time.
"It shows Google that they are not the kings of the world and they can't do whatever they want," said Serge Eyrolles, president of France's Syndicat National de l'Edition. He said Google had scanned 100,000 French books into its database, 80% of which were under copyright.
Eyrolles said French publishers would still like to work with Google to digitize their books, "but only if they stop playing around with us and start respecting intellectual property rights."
Philippe Colombet, the head of Google's book-scanning project in France, said the company disagrees with the court's ruling.
"French readers now face the threat of losing access to a significant body of knowledge and falling behind the rest of Internet users," Colombet said in a conference call with reporters. "We believe that displaying a limited number of short extracts from books complies with copyright legislation both in France and the U.S. — and improves access to books."
Colombet declined to answer questions about whether Google would remove the books from its database or pay the fine. "We are going to study the judgment carefully over the coming days," he said.
The judgment will have little or no effect on Internet users outside of France. And French books that are in Google's database with publishers' consent will remain searchable, even in France. Colombet could not say how many French books Google has scanned overall, or how many French publishers allowing Google to show its works.
Google has scanned more than 10 million books worldwide since 2004, including 2 million with the consent of about 30,000 publishers, About 9,000 of those publishers are in Europe, Colombet said. Another 2 million books in Google's library no longer are in copyright. Google has been only showing snippets from the remaining books while it tries to iron out copyright disputes.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has made catching up on France's digital delay one of the national priorities by earmarking euro750 million (about $1 billion) of a euro35 billion spending plan announced earlier this week for digitizing France's libraries, film and music archives and other repositories of the nation's recorded heritage.
Earlier this week a consortium of French technology companies announced a plan to create a book scanning project they said would be better than Google's, but only in three years time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)