D is for Digitize links

Just a few links I’ll be refer­ring to at D is for Dig­i­tize today—posted here for easy access. I’m also adding some notes below.

Puz­zle. How do you find some­one to rep­re­sent the inter­ests of the own­ers of orphan works? By def­i­n­i­tion, if you know you’re the owner of an orphan work… it’s not an orphan work anymore.

Breadth. The orig­i­nal lit­i­ga­tion focused on search snip­pet dis­play on Google Books—fair use or infringe­ment? But the set­tle­ment that emerged was… much larger. It describes whole new ini­tia­tives for Google—it reads almost more like a broad com­mer­cial agree­ment than a set­tle­ment. Many of the objec­tions have a prob­lem with this breadth.

Class action. Rule 23—the rule that gov­erns class action in the U.S.—is unique in its scope; other coun­tries has class action rules, but not with the (poten­tial) power of rule 23. The whole logic of a class action seems strange to non-​​Americans. But “we’ve all grown up get­ting those notices we can’t understand”—we’re more com­fort­able with the idea. (Though that doesn’t mean we under­stand it any better.)

Psy­chol­ogy. Well-​​established: when it’s an opt-​​out set­tle­ment, you get wide par­tic­i­pa­tion. When it’s opt-​​in, you don’t. Hey, just like the internet!

Jonathan Band. Super-​​impressive.

Inno­va­tion. One way to look at it: the set­tle­ment moves us from a “hand­i­craft” model—a cus­tom con­tract for every author—to an indus­trial model—a set of rules, and either you play or you don’t.

Analo­gies. “We need the dig­i­tal equiv­a­lent of buy­ing a book with cash. We need the dig­i­tal equiv­a­lent of hid­ing a book under your bed.”

Gear. Dan Reetz made a spe­cial back­pack to smug­gle books out of the library—lined with cop­per to con­found the sen­sors. He scanned them, took ‘em back.

Mar­ket­ing. In Rus­sia, ISPs com­pete based on who can offer you the best pack­age of pirated soft­ware and books.