US Register of Copyrights blasts Google book settlement in hearing
By Paul Biba
In an excellent summary and analysis of Marybeth Peters’ testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee, Andrew Albanese concludes that it is the most damaging piece of testimony yet given against the settlement. He posits that the Chair, John Conyers, who is very jealous of Congress’ primacy in copyright matters, might be strongly moved by the testimony, as Peters states that the settlement takes away from Congress its powers to regulate copyrights. This is an article well worth reading.
Most damaging, however, was Peters’ insistence that only Congress—not the courts—could enact such licenses, and her repeated assessments that the settlement deprived Congress of its role. “By permitting Google to engage in a wide array of new uses of most books in existence the settlement would alter the landscape of copyright law,” Peters said, “That is the role of Congress, not the courts.” She said that by allowing out-of-print works to be swept into the settlement, the deal “makes a mockery of Article I of the Constitution.” Only Congress, she stressed, after a full public debate, can set such new rules.
See, also, this article from Reuters sent to me by Ian Sullivan.
Update: Resource Shelf also has a witness listing, a press review and links to the prepared testimony. You might want to keep this link as a reference.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Good luck with that argument, if the court cared anything about the limitations set forth in the constitution, the US would have a dramatically different Federal government.