Comments on: The Class Action Loophole http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/01/the-class-action-loophole/ A Blog by Timothy B. Lee Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:54:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Jim Lakely http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/01/the-class-action-loophole/comment-page-1/#comment-6564 Jim Lakely Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:42:24 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1159#comment-6564 First, it's great to see Professor Wu comment here, as well as over at Surprisingly Free blog. But I, too, am not entirely convinced by Wu's arguments — especially considering he's a leading advocate of net neutrality (and is largely cited with having invented the term.). Isn't one of the justifications for enforceable net neutrality rules to prevent big companies from entering into exclusive agreements such as Google wants to make with publishers and authors? Second, if one of the arguments here is "If Google doesn't do it, who will?", why are Amazon and Yahoo opposing it on the grounds (at least partly) that it would lock them out? Instead of trying to distort the market for these out-of-print books — on the presumption no one else will do it — why don't we give the market some time to actually work this question a little bit? It seems to me that a lot of this discussion on both sides depend on assumptions and not facts. First, it’s great to see Professor Wu comment here, as well as over at Surprisingly Free blog. But I, too, am not entirely convinced by Wu’s arguments — especially considering he’s a leading advocate of net neutrality (and is largely cited with having invented the term.). Isn’t one of the justifications for enforceable net neutrality rules to prevent big companies from entering into exclusive agreements such as Google wants to make with publishers and authors?

Second, if one of the arguments here is “If Google doesn’t do it, who will?”, why are Amazon and Yahoo opposing it on the grounds (at least partly) that it would lock them out? Instead of trying to distort the market for these out-of-print books — on the presumption no one else will do it — why don’t we give the market some time to actually work this question a little bit? It seems to me that a lot of this discussion on both sides depend on assumptions and not facts.

]]> By: Tim Wu http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/01/the-class-action-loophole/comment-page-1/#comment-5712 Tim Wu Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:35:37 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1159#comment-5712 Thanks for the read. Two comments. First, I'm surprised you have so much faith in the legislative process. Second, in the history of copyright, lawsuits are often a way just to get negotiations going on how to really get something started. E.g, the recording industry in 1909, the cable industry, the radio industry, and on and on. They sue each other as a way of getting to know each other. In those cases the "settlement" was a compulsory license, but really nothing more than a private deal enacted by Congress. Thanks for the read.

Two comments. First, I’m surprised you have so much faith in the legislative process.

Second, in the history of copyright, lawsuits are often a way just to get negotiations going on how to really get something started. E.g, the recording industry in 1909, the cable industry, the radio industry, and on and on. They sue each other as a way of getting to know each other. In those cases the “settlement” was a compulsory license, but really nothing more than a private deal enacted by Congress.

]]> By: Pete http://timothyblee.com/2009/10/01/the-class-action-loophole/comment-page-1/#comment-4834 Pete Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:21:56 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1159#comment-4834 Yeah, I'm usually a big Tim Wu fan, but this all seems way off-base. His whole argument seems to be that the settlement is an artefact of a crazier time when young companies would plough money into speculative projects, and that we all know out-of-print books never made money for anyone. But if anyone should be able to make money off the Long Tail, it's Google. Even if you buy that there'll be no consumer interest and it'll all be limited to research, I'm sure Reed Elsevier would be surprised to learn that no-one ever made any money supplying materials to researchers. Doubly so if you're the holder of a monopoly on the exhaustive provision of digital works still in copyright. Seems to me that the Settlement can stand a few knocks. Yeah, I’m usually a big Tim Wu fan, but this all seems way off-base. His whole argument seems to be that the settlement is an artefact of a crazier time when young companies would plough money into speculative projects, and that we all know out-of-print books never made money for anyone. But if anyone should be able to make money off the Long Tail, it’s Google.

Even if you buy that there’ll be no consumer interest and it’ll all be limited to research, I’m sure Reed Elsevier would be surprised to learn that no-one ever made any money supplying materials to researchers. Doubly so if you’re the holder of a monopoly on the exhaustive provision of digital works still in copyright.

Seems to me that the Settlement can stand a few knocks.

]]>