Explaining the Google Books Case Saga

A federal court yesterday rejected a settlement between Google, authors and publishers, throwing into doubt the search company's plans to make every book ever published searchable online.

Acknowledging in his opinion that “the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many,” federal district court judge Denny Chin ultimately decided that the proposed agreement was “not fair, adequate and reasonable.”

Origins of the Google Books Case

This is the latest twist in a six-year legal saga that began when Google announced in 2004 that it was partnering with several research universities around the world to scan their entire library collections. Google would then make the digitized copies available for search online. To date Google has scanned over 12 million books.

Scanning a book means copying it, and copying a book without permission from the publisher or author is a violation of copyright. Soon after the announcement, publisher and author groups began protesting Google's ambitious plan as a violation of their rights. If Google was going to use their works, they wanted to be asked for permission—and they wanted a cut of any profits.

Google maintained that scanning the books was “fair use.” While all books would be indexed and searchable on the Google Books site, users would only be able to access the full text of books that were out of copyright and in the public domain. If a book was still under copyright, and its rights-holder had not given permission, then a search would only return a small “snippet” of text, not the whole book or even a page.

In mid-2005, the Author's Guild and the American Association of Publishers filed suit to stop Google from scanning any more books. Soon the Author's Guild's case was certified as a class-action lawsuit, meaning that anyone who had ever published a book—millions of authors—would be part of the class represented and would be bound by the result of the case.

Al-Jazeera in Talks With Comcast Over U.S. Distribution

Al-Jazeera is in discussions with Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator, about bringing the network’s English-language channel to millions of U.S. homes, the Qatar-based news service said Tuesday.

Al-Jazeera hopes to capitalize on its growing reputation as a serious provider of top-quality journalism from an increasingly tumultuous Middle East.

“We’re very grateful for all the support and appreciation we’ve been receiving,” Al-Jazeera English managing director Al Anstey said in a statement. “Clearly the demand is there for Al-Jazeera, and people want to see us on their screens.”

Anstey arrived in New York City on Tuesday to lead the talks, the network said. The Comcast meeting was the first move in a new push by Al-Jazeera to get on U.S. cable systems, which have been reluctant to carry the Qatar-based news network. A Comcast spokesperson declined to comment on the talks.

It’s quite a turn of events for Al-Jazeera, which until its widely praised coverage of the unrest in Egypt was something of a pariah in the United States. During the Iraq War, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld branded the network’s reporting of civilian casualties as “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.”

Now, the White House is watching Al-Jazeera alongside CNN.

As recently as a few weeks ago, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly labeled Al-Jazeera as “anti-American.” Later on the same program Fox News commentator Monica Crowley called the network a “propaganda outfit for the autocrats who sit on the sands of the Middle East.”

This might come as a surprise to Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who accused the channel of “fomenting unrest.” Or to embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who in a rambling and defiant speech Tuesday said Al-Jazeera was trying to portray Libyans as “bad people … a people of turbans and low beards,” according to one translation.

Internet TV Service ivi Chief Vows to Appeal Judge’s ‘Wrong’ Ruling

A federal judge in New York has issued a preliminary injunction against internet TV service ivi, in a closely-watched case pitting an upstart web video service against some of the most powerful entertainment companies in the world.

In a phone interview with Wired.com after the ruling Tuesday, ivi founder and CEO Todd Weaver vowed to appeal the order.

“The judge has it wrong,” Weaver said flatly.

The injunction is a victory for the major TV networks and a setback for the nascent crop of online video distributors aiming to offer an alternative to the major cable and satellite companies. The case highlights the disharmony between copyright law and FCC regulatory policy at a time of rapid evolution and innovation in the online video space.

“Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their copyright claim,” U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her decision. “They also have demonstrated irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships tip in their favor, and that the public interest will not be disserved by an injunction.”

“ivi streams signals to a nationwide audience, without copyright owners’ consent or compliance with the rules and regulations of the FCC,” the judge added.

Launched by Weaver, a Seattle-based entrepreneur, in September 2010, ivi (pronounced “ivy”) immediately drew the legal wrath of several major entertainment companies, including Disney, NBC Universal, Fox Television, and Major League Baseball.

That’s not altogether surprising, considering that the company’s business involves pulling down over-the-air TV signals from 55 stations in New York, Los Angleles and Chicago, and rebroadcasting them over the internet to its users, for $5 per month. Needless to say, ivi does not have the originating stations’ permission to rebroadcast the programming.