Google tries to finish things off against the project to digitize books

Again, the Google went to court to try to end an action in facing the Authors Guild, the largest organization lobbying on behalf of writers in the United States, which accuses the company has scanned millions of books for your project Google Books without ask permission, nor compensate their authors. The news agency is Reuters .

The Google claims that its project, which hopes to build the largest digital library in the world, represents a 'fair use' ('fair use') works, and therefore should not pay royalties. Since the organization of writers seeks $ 125 million to yield an agreement, which was denied by a federal judge.

The agreement was rejected by Judge Denny Chin, who considered that the approval of the partnership could mean a green light to the monopoly of the Silicon Valley company in the area of ​​digitizing books.

The company claims that more than 20 million scanned books in English and posted excerpts of about 4 million, and it was only possible thanks to an agreement with the country's large public libraries. Many of the books are still protected by copyright but are out of print for many years, so the Google claims that it is fair to scan them at no charge to authors.

In the lawsuit filed in a court in Manhattan, Google said that the provision of works - which can be searched internally - without prejudice to the authors, but helps in the dissemination of books, many of which are completely forgotten by society.

"The Google Books creates enormous and positive transformations and by no means reduces the value of the work of the authors, "the lawsuit says.

And you, what do you think?

Read More

Google would have to sensurar the word 'torrent' and 'RapidShare'

 

The terms "torrent", "rapidshare" and "megaupload" can not be suggested when a person performs a search on Google. That is, should be eliminated as suggestions. That's what the Supreme Court has ordered the French in the music industry litigation against Google SNEP, whom he accused of helping to implicitly musical copyright infringement not filter those words.
 

What is the reason? The Supreme Court of France argues that Google provides (indirectly) piracy by not filtering the above terms, so the case was sent to the Court of Appeals which shall make the final decision for Google.

Indeed, in 2010 the trade association of the Recording Industry of France, SNEP, filed a lawsuit against Google, this was a way to force the company to filter out certain terms in their searches, noting that when users write the name an artist, Google added suggestions of words like 'torrent' or 'Rapidshare', facilitating piracy.

This case went to court that gave reason to Google before it reached the Supreme Court ruled that Google is not responsible for web sites that infringe copyright, but can handle it difficult for the public to find pirated content. It also could add more terms to the list of censored words if the appeal does not benefit Google. What do you think?

Read More

The law of 'copyright' angers EU Radiohead and Pink Floyd

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The draft law of the European Union to give musicians more control over their copyright has angered bands like Radiohead and Pink Floyd, who accuse the European Commission to break its promises to address the problem of default suffering.
The commission announced on Wednesday a bill designed to ensure that companies that collect copyright on behalf of the artists also have them delivered to the musicians, composers and producers involved in each subject.
"We are deeply disappointed by his choice to defend the minority of managers and shareholders," said a letter signed by Nick Mason of Pink Floyd, Radiohead's Ed O'Brien, British singer Sandie Shaw, producer and director CJ Bolland of Younison, a pressure group formed by artists, Kelvin Smits.
According to the Commission's own assessment, the rights management companies - of which more than 250 operating in Europe - kept "substantial sums" in its books pending distribution.
In a striking analysis before Wednesday's announcement, the Commission said that in 2010 the leading management companies were 3,600 million euros in right of authors to the creators.
The artists say the figure is actually much higher and that the managers have no incentive to pay quickly, profitability gives them keep the money.
Between five and 10 percent of payments are retained for at least three years after his recovery, the Commission said.
The bill, which need approval by the European Parliament and of the 27 Member States, said that companies will have 12 months of the fiscal year in which the song plays to pay 'royalties'. And the funds owned by the issues identified will not be theirs after five years.
"They have broken their promises and encourage managers to management companies to retain the fruits of our creativity" read the letter of the artists to the Commission. "They Steal our hopes."
The musicians say a grace period of five years only encourage the managers to keep the money they owe, and reduces incentives to find the owners of those rights.
"This way legitimize one of the most problematic forms of fraud made by the rights management companies in Europe," added the document.
The managers say they try to pay the copyright owners as fast as possible and that many already do fertilizers earlier than the bill asks.
PRS in the UK make your payments every three months, said Veronique Desbrosses, Secretary General of GESAC, which represents 33 of these companies in the European Union.
"And sometimes it is difficult to find the owners because they are all over the world," he added.
The law also seeks to curb piracy by expanding the number of songs that can be played online as Apple's iTunes service, which needs the permission of managers before offering.

Read More