Open Book Alliance Releases 'Facts vs. Fiction About the Google Book Settlement'; Urges House Judiciary Committee to Explore These Seven Crucial Topics - Sep11,09

By Ron Moore
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5697-Grassroots-Politics-Examiner~y2009m9d10-Open-Book-Alliance-releases-Facts-vs-Fiction-About-the-Google-Book-Settlement

In advance of the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the proposed Google Book Settlement, the Open Book Alliance released a list of seven issues related to the settlement that it believes are misunderstood and worthy of further discussion.

"There's been a lot of questions about the nature of this settlement, and, unfortunately, there remains some inaccurate information out there," said Peter Brantley, director, Internet Archive and co-chair of the Open Book Alliance. "We sincerely hope that today's hearing helps clarify some of the facts about the settlement, and we encourage the members of the House Judiciary Committee to explore these areas in its questioning of Google and its partners."

FICTION: The proposed settlement is "non-exclusive" and would create a Books Rights Registry to license books to Google's competitors.

FACT: The deal would create a de facto exclusive license for Google because the deal grants no rights to the BRR to license books to competitors -- copyright owners will have to license Google's competitors voluntarily, while Google gets an involuntary, virtual compulsory license through class action process. As a result, only Google receives a license to "orphan books", whose owners won't show up to license competitors and which comprise an estimated 70% of books. In short, the settlement all but guarantees that Google would have permanent competitive advantages around comprehensiveness and cost. This is one reason why the Department of Justice is investigating the proposed deal and numerous non-profit organizations, academics and other stakeholders have condemned it.

FICTION: The proposed settlement agreement merely resolves private litigation between private parties, which is a good thing.

FACT: The deal far exceeds the bounds of a typical legal settlement. It would tread directly on Congress' jurisdiction, privatizing important copyright and public policy decisions historically made by Congress. It abuses class action procedure to create an exclusive joint venture between Google, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the Authors' Guild, strengthening Google's dominance in search and creating a cartel for the sale of digitized books. It would bind nearly every copyright owner of every book published before 2009 throughout the world, and thus create, as the U.S. Register of Copyrights said, "a compulsory license for the benefit of one company."

FICTION: Google is paying copyright owners an enormous sum of $125 million for the use of their books.

FACT: In fact, the deal would give a handful of lawyers involved $45 million, the same amount that will be spread in small amounts to the millions of copyright owners whose books were copied by Google. Authors and publishers would get only 1/3 of Google's outlay, paid at $60 per book only if Google has already scanned the book into its database. Google would pay nothing under the settlement for any scanning done after January 2009.

FICTION: Google Books is about finding old books and making them available -- it's not about web search.
FACT: Google's copying activities were initially focused on feeding its search engine. That continues to be its primary motivation. The proposed settlement would provide Google enormous benefits by using books to improve the artificial intelligence (AI) behind all of its services, including its dominant web search and advertising, via valuable "non-display" uses. Under the proposed settlement, authors and publishers would get paid nothing for any of these uses. As one Google engineer explained, "We're not scanning all those books to be read by people. We're scanning them to be read by [our] AI."

FICTION: Congress can fix any problems with the proposed settlement by passing orphan works legislation.
FACT: The deal would usurp the role of Congress and grant special rules for Google -- and only Google -- to use orphan works that are very different and much more advantageous to Google than the rules contained in the orphan works bills considered last term in Congress. Orphan works reform can only be enacted through legislation, not class action fiat, and must be made available to all potential users -- educational, non-profit and commercial institutions alike.

FICTION: Authors and publishers can tell Google not to use their books in Google Books, so their copyright rights are preserved.
FACT: An author's right to remove her book from Google's database expires in 2011. Given the millions of absent and orphan rights holders, and the fact that the commercial service may not even launch by then, many rights holders will be unaware of this irrevocable loss of control over their copyrights. Finally, if Google does not comply with an author's instructions, she is limited to bringing arbitration over Google's "best efforts" and will have forfeited the ability to file a copyright infringement lawsuit.

FICTION: Copyright owners who don't like the settlement can simply opt-out of the class action and preserve their rights against Google.
FACT: The deal would establish Google as the new superpower in the online book marketplace, leaving those authors who opt-out at a substantial commercial disadvantage.
The Open Book Alliance is a coalition of unions, librarians, legal scholars, authors, publishers, and technology companies created to counter the proposed Google Book Settlement in its current form. The Open Book Alliance can be found online at http://www.openbookalliance.org/ , and on Twitter @OBAlliance.

U.S. Labor Department issues reports on international child labor and forced labor - Sep11,09

By Ron Moore
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2071-DC-Special-Interests-Examiner~y2009m9d10-US-Labor-Department-issues-reports-on-international-child-labor-and-forced-labor
The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs has released three reports on child labor and/or forced labor in countries around the globe. The documents include the initial "List of Goods Produced by Child or Forced Labor" required by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005.

"It is my strong hope that consumers, firms, governments, labor unions and other stakeholders will use this information to translate their economic power into a force for good that ultimately will eliminate abusive child labor and forced labor," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis.
Solis continues:
"Child labor and forced labor are inexcusable abuses of human rights, and these reports show that they continue to be a problem in 21st century society. We must do everything in our power to end these shameful practices.

"While the United States is fundamentally opposed to the exploitation of any worker, the plight of children and adults working in forced labor is especially severe. These individuals are among the world's most vulnerable, and we have a moral duty to help and protect them.

"There is much we can do together to remedy this problem. The Labor Department's projects around the globe have helped rescue almost 1.3 million children from exploitive labor, offering them new hope through education and training. And, as I engage in a dialogue with my international counterparts, I will continue emphasizing the importance of eradicating forced labor and child labor. After all, ending such practices represents a global challenge, and international cooperation is essential in finding effective and lasting solutions.

The TVPRA List informs the public about 122 goods from 58 countries that ILAB has reason to believe are produced by forced labor, child labor or both in violation of international standards. ILAB also has released a proposed update to the "List of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor" pursuant to Executive Order 13126 of 1999. The list includes 29 products from 21 countries and will be available for public comment beginning Sept. 11. In addition, ILAB has published its 8th annual "Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor" as mandated by the Trade and Development Act of 2000 on the efforts of 141 countries and territories to combat exploitive child labor.

The countries with products included on the TVPRA List span every region of the world. The most common items listed include cotton, sugar cane, tobacco, coffee, rice and cocoa in agriculture; bricks, garments, carpets and footwear in manufacturing; and gold and coal in mined and quarried goods.

The primary purpose of the TVPRA List is to raise public awareness about the incidence of child labor and forced labor in the production of goods in the countries listed and to promote efforts to eliminate such practices. Today's release is an initial list that will be updated periodically.

The bureau's Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor and Human Trafficking prepared the three reports and collected data from U.S. embassies, foreign governments, international and nongovernmental organizations, technical assistance and field research projects, academic research and the media.

OCFT has funded more than $720 million in programs to help officials in more than 80 countries combat the worst forms of child labor. ILAB conducts research on and formulates international economic, trade and labor policies in collaboration with other U.S. government agencies, and provides international technical assistance in support of U.S. foreign-labor policy objectives.

Copies of the reports are available here.

ACLU challenges prolonged detention of immigrants in Pennsylvania launches website on prolonged detention of immigrants in U.S. - August 4,2009

By Ron Moore http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5697-Grassroots-Politics-Examiner~y2009m8d4-ACLU-launches-website-on-prolonged-detention-of-immigrants-in-US The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a new website today as it claimed in a federal court in Pennsylvania today that the government is violating the law by detaining people for prolonged periods of time - sometimes for years - while they fight their immigration cases, without ever giving them a hearing on whether their detention is justified. "Locking people up for years without bond hearings flies in the face of the core American values of fairness and justice," said Judy Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, who is arguing before the court today. "We don't live in a country that has unfettered authority to imprison people without hearings for as long as it takes to decide their cases. Our Constitution guarantees every person a day in court, but many immigrants are denied this most basic due process protection." In today's oral argument in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the ACLU is representing two immigrants, Elliot Grenade and Alexander Alli, both lawful permanent U.S. residents, who have been held indefinitely without hearings in Pennsylvania prisons while they pursue legitimate legal challenges to deportation. Grenade and Alli are seeking to represent a class of other similarly detained immigrants in Pennsylvania. The ACLU charges that the prolonged detention of immigrants without bond hearings violates both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and due process. Grenade, who is from Trinidad and Tobago, has lived in the U.S. for nearly 28 years as a lawful permanent resident. His two children, domestic partner and his mother are all U.S. citizens. Grenade has spent nearly two years in immigration detention fighting the government's efforts to deport him based on a drug sale offense that took place over 10 years ago. During the entire length of Grenade's detention, he has never received a bond hearing to determine whether his detention is justified. Alli, who came to the U.S. in 1990 from Ghana, is a lawful permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen with whom he has three children. He owns an established real estate company in the Bronx, New York. For the past 11 months, Alli has been held in detention while challenging the government's efforts to deport him because of convictions related to major credit card fraud. An immigration judge has found that Alli is eligible to apply for a waiver that would allow him to seek a new green card and remain in the country. However, Alli has never had a chance to present this information in a bond hearing so a judge can determine whether his detention is justified. Over the last several years, the use of detention as an immigration enforcement strategy has increased exponentially. On an average day, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security detains roughly 33,400 non-citizens in federal detention facilities and local jails across the country, over a threefold increase in the detention population since just a decade ago. "Many immigrants in detention have substantial challenges to deportation and pose no danger to society or flight risk, yet they are unable to endure the prospect of prolonged detention and end up abandoning their cases," said Vic Walczak, Legal Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, which is co-counsel on the case. "It makes no sense to lock people up for years while their immigration cases wind their way through the courts. We are spending millions of tax dollars incarcerating people for no purpose." The ACLU is launching a web page today that features a video, profiles and podcasts of several immigrants the ACLU and other organizations have represented, including lawful permanent residents and asylum seekers, who have been subjected to prolonged detention without meaningful review.