We see from yesterday's post that global banking placed MOVING FORWARD on steroids during REAGAN/CLINTON setting the stage for ROBBER BARON fleecing of America right as our BABY BOOMER children were heading to college. Baby boomers fought that WW2--Korean---Vietnamese Wars now their children were to benefit from all that FREEDOM, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
What happened was the opposite. Those US colleges and universities being tied to global banking corporatization were heavy with GREEK LIFE. Before late 1980s and 90s we had strong REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES in our US public K-university and we had a strong voice in media. What we discuss every day NOW is exactly what was mainstream back in 1960s---70s----80s. We KNEW where MOVING FORWARD was going back then as now---and we KNEW what the MASTER PLAN for bringing our US cities to FAILED STATES to rebuild as US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES would look like.
This is when our US higher education went from educating our US students to be CITIZENS----STRONG BUSINESS LEADERS working in our communities to build REAL free market economies----to PLEDGING TO WORK FOR GLOBAL BANKING 1%-----handing over their status as US CITIZENS.
This hit our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens hard-----but private schools were tying their children to being 5% players in higher rates then our public schools.
BOTH GRADUATES OF THESE US SCHOOLS ENDED THOSE SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AS CITIZENS.
We discussed our K-12 private schools earlier---like BOYS LATIN, GILMAN SCHOOL, BRYN MAWR et al as being made the school of choice for those 5% players as our US city public schools were defunded and made dysfunctional. We also showed how these private K-12 are slated to be closed and disappear. All US 99% of students black, white, and brown citizens whether private schooled parents or public schooled parents are going to be funneled into these pre-K education testing vocational tracking structures MOVING FORWARD as RACE TO THE TOP/COMMONER CORE.
While REAL left social progressives have always fought for integrated public schools meaning not only race but gender----we never had any problem with parents choosing these exclusive schools. What happened during REAGAN/CLINTON as those 5% players being made to feel they were WINNERS were funneled through these private schools then opening them to US IVY LEAGUES was the killing of our 99% WE THE PEOPLE from having REAL INFORMATION to having myth-making and propaganda.
The Power of a Girls' School
An all-girls' environment provides a wonderful opportunity for girls to explore who they are as young women and scholars without social pressure. It's good to be smart at Bryn Mawr! Our students are academically engaged, inquisitive and not afraid to speak their minds. Enthusiasm for all subjects – including math, science, public speaking and technology – is nurtured from the youngest age; no discipline is "off limits" for girls. At Bryn Mawr, students collaborate with their fellow students in the classroom, on a sports team, while planning club activities and more. Girls learn quickly that they have much to offer and much to learn from one another, leading to true lifelong friendships.
Leadership opportunities abound in student government, clubs and athletics. Bryn Mawr students plan, propose and lead over 40 clubs each year (Princeton Model Congress, Operation Smile, Environmental Coalition, "The Quill" newspaper and Mock Trial, to name just a few). Bryn Mawr girls gain confidence in their leadership abilities as they prepare election speeches for class officer positions, speak to prospective families as leaders of the Ambassador Club or learn to run a meeting in their role as club president.
With hundreds of girls who like to play everything from ice hockey to squash, the variety and levels of athletics offerings at Bryn Mawr is staggering! Team bonding and spirit are celebrated at Bryn Mawr. Whether an ace tennis player or the team manager, each girl's contribution is valued. Many girls continue to play their chosen sports in college.
Bryn Mawr girls can be found building stage sets, developing photos in the darkroom, starring in the fall musical, playing the cello in a string ensemble and more. Dance, music, theatre and the fine arts are integral parts of the curriculum at Bryn Mawr and are enjoyed by novices and serious aficionados alike. Bryn Mawr girls feel free to try their hands at many things, supported by their teachers and classmates.
Social and Emotional Support
In this complicated and fast-paced world there are many issues that pertain to girls and their development. At Bryn Mawr, we speak about these topics freely. This comfortable atmosphere, with strong female role models as positive mentors, enables our students to open up, and share their feelings and know they are not alone. It is this nurturing environment that allows girls to truly become comfortable with themselves.
Bryn Mawr offers girls the academic and personal support they need to develop from young girls into confident young women.Acknowledgements
Bryn Mawr is proud to be a member of the National Coalition of Girls Schools. For more information on the many advantages of a girls' school, view the NCGS video above or visit www.ncgs.org.
- Apple Distinguished School
- Apple Distinguished School
Located in Baltimore, Maryland, The Bryn Mawr School is a private all-girls kindergarten, elementary, middle and high school with a coed preschool for ages 2 months through 5 years. Bryn Mawr provides students with exceptional educational opportunities on a beautiful 26-acre campus within the city limits. Inquisitive girls, excellent teaching, strong student-teacher relationships and a clear mission sustain our vibrant school community where girls always come first.
Boys' Latin of Philadelphia Charter School - Wikipedia
Boys' Latin of Philadelphia Charter School is a Pennsylvania approved secondary charter school located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
It was this MOVING FORWARD policy by global banking to kill our US strong public education both private and public schools -----capturing employment and jobs to only those 5% freemason/Greek players these few decades including those foreign student global 1% and their 2% which is causing massive unemployment for today's US WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizen college grads. Not that they are less educated----not that they are not as smart as those 5% players-----it is orchestrated by global banking 1% killing of our US standards of life.
The massive global banking frauds and government corruption during ROBBER BARON few decades has set the stage for the next round of MANUFACTURED CRISES including the further defunding and attack on our US school system.....MOVING FORWARD to ONE WORLD ONLINE COMMONER CORE for the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE vs the ONE WORLD ONLINE GLOBAL IVY LEAGUE education for only those global 1%.
THIS IS BACK TO DARK AGES FOR US WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens===as well as our 99% of new immigrant citizens.
SCHOOLING TAKING OUR CHILDREN NOWHERE.
We showed earlier how AFFINITY GROUPS are being tied to MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE AND SMART CITY policies being global banking pushers of job policies-----college grads need to get this degree that vocational training ----after which these US citizens graduate and there is NO JOB FOR THEM---now its another job training employment category.
THIS GLOBAL BANKING ECONOMY STARTED DURING REAGAN/CLINTON HAS ALWAYS HAD THESE GOALS. CONTROLLING THE ECONOMY AND JOB EMPLOYMENT THEN TYING OUR US SCHOOLS TO THAT CAPTURED ECONOMY.
Why are so many students failing to find good jobs after college?
By Jeffrey J. Selingo December 16, 2016 Washington Post
College freshmen now regularly say the No. 1 reason to attend college is to “get a better job,” according to a major annual survey of incoming students conducted by UCLA. Before 2006, students told researchers that the top reason to go to college was to “learn about things that interest me.”
That college is seen as a training ground for a job is perceived by professors as anathema to their mission of broadly educating students. Most will tell you that their job is not to get their students a job after graduation. As a result, that responsibility is usually left to career centers, which typically are underfunded and often tucked away in a corner of campus that students don’t find until their senior year, if ever.
And for the most part, career centers are failing students, according to new research out this week from Gallup and Purdue University.
In a survey of more than 11,000 college graduates, the Gallup-Purdue Index found that fewer than half of recent graduates — those who graduated since 2010 — found the career center helpful or very helpful. And that’s just among the students who visited the career center at least once. Six in 10 recent graduates said they never visited the career office as an undergraduate.
Among the graduates of all years who said in the survey that career services were very helpful, 49 percent of them said that they had a good job waiting for them after graduation. Just 15 percent who said career services weren’t helpful said the same about their job prospects after graduation.
No wonder so many students are struggling to launch after college. Nearly half of new graduates are underemployed, working jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A study that was released last week found that the likelihood young adults will earn more than their parents has fallen dramatically in the past few decades. Just half of Americans born in 1984 earned more at age 30 than their parents did at the same age.
College officials will defend their career services by saying students share the responsibility in finding a good job after graduation, and they are certainly right in that assessment. Students find jobs in all kinds of ways, not just by visiting the career center. The Gallup survey found that 20 percent of students acquired an internship or job through a friend. Another half found their jobs through professors or other staff members on campus.
Such informal networks, often established for the first time in college, are the way many students find out about internships and jobs. It’s the reason students, and especially their parents, drive themselves crazy to get into Stanford or Harvard. It’s not because the education is so much better at those places; it’s because of the network students connect to, through the parents of their classmates, alumni, and eventually through the students themselves when they become alumni.
Navigating that network, however, is difficult for many students. Fewer than half of college seniors in the annual National Survey of Student Engagement, a poll of college freshmen and seniors, said they talked often with a faculty member about their career plans.
At selective colleges, students who lack social capital, particularly lower-income students, often find it tough to plug into a network. Affluent students typically can draw on family resources after college to make up for their weak academic records as undergraduates, according to a study of freshmen women at Indiana University that resulted in the 2013 book, Paying for the Party.
So while a group of elite colleges pledged this week to enroll 50,000 more low-income students in the coming decade, they will need to do more than just provide them the aid for tuition and living expenses. Those students will need help in navigating the informal campus networks, and in getting the internships during college that are of increasing importance for landing a good job afterward.
One way that colleges can better support low-income students in finding meaningful work is through the federal work-study program. The federal government picks up 75 percent of the cost of students in the program (with the colleges picking up the other 25 percent). But most of those jobs are on campus, and typically low-skill jobs, such as in the dining hall or as office assistants or working the desk at the recreation center — positions that usually don’t provide students with many marketable skills.
While there are some limitations, colleges can partner with off-campus employers and use work study funds to place students in jobs that will help their résumés. But colleges with tight budgets prefer to fill on-campus jobs with work-study students, and many financial-aid officials say they don’t have the time or the expertise to establish partnerships with off-campus employers.
The economy and the job market have evolved in ways that make the typical college playbook for preparing students for post-graduation no longer relevant. Graduates expect colleges to help them find jobs. Those in the Gallup-Purdue survey who said their career offices were helpful were three times more likely than those who didn’t to think their degrees were worth the price and two and half times more likely to donate to their schools.
Perhaps it’s that last finding that will finally persuade colleges — and even professors — that it’s part of their job to help students find jobs.
We discussed how our US FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT stats went from showing a reasonable picture of our US labor employment when our US economy was booming BEFORE REAGAN era started sending our US corporation overseas. Since REAGAN/CLINTON those US FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT STATS were being made by global banking 1% GLOBAL MITRE AND RAND CORPORATION bringing what was closely accurate Federal data to being JUKED DATA to be used as propaganda. As with our national media myth-making on US unemployment these few decades---below we see myth-making with the DECLINE OF AMERICAN CHILDREN earning more than their parents. Who is making these myth-making stats? HARVARD AND STANFORD global hedge fund IVY LEAGUES.
'The Fading American Dream: Percent of Children Earning More than their Parents, by Year of Birth
Equality of Opportunity Project, 2016'
'Friedman - along with economists Raj Chetty at Stanford and Nathaniel Hendren at Harvard - started the Equality of Opportunity Project'
THE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY PROJECT headed by global banking 5 % players is FAKE NEWS. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that our US 99% went from GREAT DEPRESSION where a super-majority of US citizens were impoverished by global banking ROBBER BARON ROARING 20s' frauds-----to having each generation after earning more than their parents. Even through 1980s and 90s-----it was REAGAN?CLINTON era that sent US corporation overseas to hand to OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS in mergers and acquisitions.
It is true these attacks on US 99% wealth started during CARTER 1970s in his union-busting and creation of FEDERAL ENERGY AGENCY that led to OIL AND GAS DEREGULATION AND CONSOLIDATION soaking 99% of WE THE PEOPLE for energy costs......but those numbers of US citizens hit were in the millions while our US population was reaching 300 million.
HECHINGERREPORT has always been a far-right global banking 1% corporate education media outlet here filling EDUCATION AND WEALTH STATS created by far-right wing global banking STANFORD, HARVARD, AND BROWN UNIVERSITY.....all myth-making and FAKE DATA. All this FAKE DATA is created to make it appear a US college education does nothing for 99% of black, white, and brown US citizens---
April 23 at 1:42pm · Some colleges and universities are doing more to improve economic and social mobility. In this Educate podcast, APM Reports foreshadows its upcoming documentary on this topic, speaking with John Friedman, founder of Brown University's Equality of Opportunity Project.
Are America's colleges promoting social mobility?
Economists dig into the data to understand which schools are doing the most to help revive the American Dream.
April 23, 2018 | by Emily Hanford
Back in the 1980s, Derek Peterson was admitted to Stony Brook University in New York as part of a special program for low-income students who show potential but aren't fully prepared for college.
"There were a lot of people who said you're not going to be able to do it," he says. "The school is really tough."
But he did do it. Peterson graduated in 1988 with a degree in computer science and applied mathematics. Now he's a wealthy tech entrepreneur and he's setting up a scholarship at Stony Brook to honor his father, who never finished college.
Peterson is an example of someone who rose from modest means with the help of a college degree.
Stories of upward mobility were once a key feature of American life. Children born in the 1940s were almost guaranteed to grow up and earn more than their parents did.
RELATED 🎧 A Better Life: Creating the American Dream
But upward mobility has stalled, according to Brown University economist John Friedman.
"By the time you get to when I was born in 1980, only 50 percent of kids earn more than their parents do," he says.
The Fading American Dream: Percent of Children Earning More than their Parents, by Year of Birth
Equality of Opportunity Project, 2016
We're working on a documentary about college and social mobility. Tell us your story. Did going to college change your social class? Listen for the documentary on the podcast and on public radio stations nationwide beginning August 2018.
Friedman - along with economists Raj Chetty at Stanford and Nathaniel Hendren at Harvard - started the Equality of Opportunity Project to try to figure out what has led to the erosion of the American Dream, and how it can be revived. One of the things they're investigating is the role of higher education. In particular, they want to know which colleges in America are doing the most to promote upward mobility.
They examined millions of anonymous tax forms and financial aid records covering everyone who went to college in the United States between 1999 and 2013. They're now looking at the family income of every student before they went to college, and again when they are in their 30s. With this data, Friedman and his colleagues have created a mobility report card for every college. A college's mobility rate is defined as the percentage of students who come from the lowest income families (the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution) and make it to the top (the highest 20 percent).
It turns out Stony Brook University, where Peterson went, is one of the best colleges in America when it comes to promoting mobility.
'The State of Maryland is now accepting applications for its BOOST scholarship program for the 2018-19 school year! Now in its third year, the BOOST Program awards scholarships to income-eligible K-12 students to be used for attendance at any eligible nonpublic school'.
As private schools are made CHARTER SCHOOLS---like BRYN MAWR, BOYS LATIN, et al we KNOW what are being called CHARTERS will morph into GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS SCHOOLS----no religion---no strong US public education.
MARYLAND and BALTIMORE always escape those national maps showing MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE march to ending US public education but we are totally captured by these global banking 1% corporate school structures.
NO BOOST happening here for our US low-income or any other US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
The BOOST Scholarship Coalition
The State of Maryland is now accepting applications for its BOOST scholarship program for the 2018-19 school year! Now in its third year, the BOOST Program awards scholarships to income-eligible K-12 students to be used for attendance at any eligible nonpublic school. Additionally, a portion of BOOST funding will be directed for higher scholarships to assist students with special needs. This year, there’s $7.6 million available, so please apply!
Who’s eligible for BOOST Scholarships?
• Public school students, as well as current nonpublic school students.
• Students whose family incomes are at or below the following (include all members of household in count):
- Family of 2: $30,044
- Family of 3: $37,777
- Family of 4: $45,510
- Family of 5: $53,243
Click below to apply for BOOST through the State of MarylandThe 2018-2019 school year application through the State Department of Education is now available.
The application deadline for the 2018-19 school year will be May 21, 2018, at 5:00 p.m.
Please visit www.marylandpublicschools.org/boost to apply.
Por favor visite www.marylandpublicschools.org/boost para aplicar.
**PLEASE NOTE that this website is put forth by the nonprofit BOOST Coalition to direct parents toward the application and other information through the Maryland State Department of Education, which official administers the scholarship program for the State. The link above will take you to the official application.
2018-2019 BOOST Income Eligibility Guidelines
Click here to see if your family meets the income threshold to receive a BOOST scholarship award.
Eligible Participating SchoolsA list of eligible participating schools for 2018-2019 through the Maryland State Department of Education can be found here.
BOOST Coalition · email: info@EducationMaryland.org · phone: 443-510-4501
No US state is being hit harder by RACE TO THE TOP and COMMONER CORE global banking 1% attack on our US public education K-UNIVERSITY than WISCONSIN. It has long been global banking CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL capture of our DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Here we have that EDUCATION CANDIDATE as DEMOCRAT-----she is tied to SCHOOL BOARD-----yet we cannot find ANYWHERE in her campaign discussion of education the goals of STOPPING MOVING FORWARD----the goals of STOPPING RACE TO TOP/COMMONER CORE----the goals of getting global banking 1% out of our government by ending the designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
We have discussed often how our US AFT---WEINGARTEN et al as 5% global banking players as labor union leaders are partnered with global banking. This is why in US we do not have protests against GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM education public policy. Please do not follow those 5% global banking freemason/Greek labor leaders----
LET'S JUST GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL BANKING POLS AND PLAYERS-----
Cathy Myers launches teachers, students program to mobilize voters
- The Wisconsin Gazette
- Apr 25, 2018 Updated Apr 25, 2018
Cathy Myers, a Janesville School Board Member and Democrat running for Congress in Wisconsin’s 1st District, announced the launch of Teachers and Students for Cathy.
The program, which will employ students and teachers as summer organizers, is the campaign’s newest initiative to mobilize and engage voters in the district now represented by House Speaker Paul Ryan.
Myers faces Randy Bryce in the Democratic primary set for August.
“As a parent, and a teacher, I know that our public education system is crucially important -- and now, it’s under repeated attacks by Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos," Myers said in a news release. "I’m running for Congress to bring an educator’s perspective to the halls of the Capitol and protect public education from the Trump administration’s shameful attacks."
She added, “I’m thrilled to have the support of teachers and students in Wisconsin’s 1st District, and I know that their perspective is invaluable. That’s why I’m relying on them to help us carry this campaign across the finish line.”
Teachers and Students for Cathy is being launched teachers in multiple locations in the United States are striking to demand fair wages, decent working conditions and quality education for all students.
Myers previously organized her union’s strike center during a teachers’ strike at her school.
As part of Teachers and Students for Cathy, the campaign will pay organizers a living wage, provide housing and work with teachers and students to provide the resources, skills and training they need win elections .
Myers herself is a single mother of two and 24-year veteran high school teacher who is serving a second term on the Janesville School Board.
Here are those GLOBAL BANKING 1% FREEMASON STARS-----the MOODY BLUES----singing our favorite hits in the 1960s. Without coincidence they are singing about those KNIGHTS IN WHITE SATIN---those OLD WORLD GLOBAL % KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA----this being early US 1960s just after EISENHOWER AVIATION ACT attaching all our US Federal agencies to a foreign sovereignty MITRE CORPORATION/RAND CORPORATION.
NEVER REACHING THE END ======endless wars tied to the United States being driven by global banking 1% MALTA making America looking like the DESPOTS.
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES back in 1960s---70s---80s were educating just as we are today against global banking MOVING FORWARD goals of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%.
Sadly, these global banking 1% freemason/Greek STARS are only living for today----SHOW ME THE MONEY--not caring what society will look like for our children and grandchildren----thinking they are WINNERS.
It took the 1970s and NIXON opening CHINA to bring MOVING FORWARD to fully speed beginning the sending of US corporations overseas and into the hands of GLOBAL BANKING 1% KINGS AND QUEENS.
AMERICA'S SECRET WAR????? OH, REALLY???????
Notice that global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE COLUMBIA 5% media giving US and global 99% FAKE NEWS.
Dean Vali Nasr cordially invites you to
A conversation on Directorate S:
The C.I.A. and America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Author, Pulitzer Prize winner
Dean & Henry R. Luce Professor of Journalism, Columbia University School of Journalism
The Moody Blues - Nights In White Satin
One of the first official videos of "Nights In White Satin" in 1967. "Nights" in Paris. A timeless song. http://go.magik.ly/ml/5sra/ htt…
Nights in white satin, never reaching the end,
Letters I've written, never meaning to send
Beauty I've always missed, with these eyes before
Just what the truth is, I can't say anymore
'Cos I love you, yes I love you, oh how I love you
Gazing at people, some hand in hand
Just what I'm going through they can't understand
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end
And I love you, yes I love you
Oh how I love you, oh how I love you
Nights in white satin, never reaching the end
Letters I've written, never meaning to send
Beauty I've always missed, with these eyes before
Just what the truth is, I can't say anymore
'Cos I love you, yes I love you
Oh how I love you, oh how I love you
'Cos I love you, yes I love you
Oh how I love you, oh how I love you
We will end this week's discussion of education public policy by returning to LOVETT'S LOST BOOK OF HOLY GRAIL and how GLOBAL GOOGLE'S digitization of all books globally so only the global 1% will be able to access these books of knowledge needed to understand REAL INFORMATION AND make the clearest pathway to REAL HISTORY------is being sold by those 5% players black, white, and brown citizens as being DEMOCRATIZING-----OPENING OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL 99% US AND GLOBAL WE THE PEOPLE.
Obviously that is not true----it is myth-making and propaganda.
What is MOVING FORWARD is consolidation of all the world's most important books, academic writings et al into ONE WORLD ONE DIGITAL LIBRARY for only the global 1%. As with that SEED BANK VAULT holding the pre-GMO seeds from around the world --only accessible by those dastardly global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----so too this is the goal of GLOBAL GOOGLE DIGITALIZATION OF ALL BOOKS.
Being educated by global COMMONER CORE online lessons written by global banking 1% having no access to BOOKS----not good for our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, or brown citizens AND our 99% new immigrant citizens
NOBODY wins when our citizens' voices are allowed to be silenced------our 99% right wing citizens lose as well as our 99% left wing citizens....those 15th generation second removed on their father's side 5% players---going under the bus as well.
COME TOGETHER AS THAT 99% VS GLOBAL 1% ----LET'S JUST DO IT.
This is a long article---but please glance through--
Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria
“Somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them.”
- James Somers
- Apr 20, 2017 THE ATLANTIC
You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that’s ever been published. Books still in print you’d have to pay for, but everything else—a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe--would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one.
At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You’d be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you’d be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable—as alive in the digital world—as web pages.
It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. “The universal library has been talked about for millennia,” Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford’s Bodleian Libraries, has said. “It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution.” In the spring of 2011, it seemed we’d amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk.
“This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life,” one eager observer wrote at the time.
On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century’s worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an “international catastrophe.” When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who’d had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.
* * *
Google’s secret effort to scan every book in the world, codenamed “Project Ocean,” began in earnest in 2002 when Larry Page and Marissa Mayer sat down in the office together with a 300-page book and a metronome. Page wanted to know how long it would take to scan more than a hundred-million books, so he started with one that was lying around. Using the metronome to keep a steady pace, he and Mayer paged through the book cover-to-cover. It took them 40 minutes.
Page had always wanted to digitize books. Way back in 1996, the student project that eventually became Google—a “crawler” that would ingest documents and rank them for relevance against a user’s query—was actually conceived as part of an effort “to develop the enabling technologies for a single, integrated and universal digital library.” The idea was that in the future, once all books were digitized, you’d be able to map the citations among them, see which books got cited the most, and use that data to give better search results to library patrons. But books still lived mostly on paper. Page and his research partner, Sergey Brin, developed their popularity-contest-by-citation idea using pages from the World Wide Web.
By 2002, it seemed to Page like the time might be ripe to come back to books. With that 40-minute number in mind, he approached the University of Michigan, his alma mater and a world leader in book scanning, to find out what the state of the art in mass digitization looked like. Michigan told Page that at the current pace, digitizing their entire collection—7 million volumes—was going to take about a thousand years. Page, who’d by now given the problem some thought, replied that he thought Google could do it in six.
Every weekday, semi trucks full of books would pull up at designated Google scanning centers.He offered the library a deal: You let us borrow all your books, he said, and we’ll scan them for you. You’ll end up with a digital copy of every volume in your collection, and Google will end up with access to one of the great untapped troves of data left in the world. Brin put Google’s lust for library books this way: “You have thousands of years of human knowledge, and probably the highest-quality knowledge is captured in books.” What if you could feed all the knowledge that’s locked up on paper to a search engine?
Hmmmm, BRIN and ZUCKERBERG known to have done the tour to all GLOBAL BANKING HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUES like Johns Hopkins? Both ending up with control of ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY GRID---
By 2004, Google had started scanning. In just over a decade, after making deals with Michigan, Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, the New York Public Library, and dozens of other library systems, the company, outpacing Page’s prediction, had scanned about 25 million books. It cost them an estimated $400 million. It was a feat not just of technology but of logistics.
Every weekday, semi trucks full of books would pull up at designated Google scanning centers. The one ingesting Stanford’s library was on Google’s Mountain View campus, in a converted office building. The books were unloaded from the trucks onto the kind of carts you find in libraries and wheeled up to human operators sitting at one of a few dozen brightly lit scanning stations, arranged in rows about six to eight feet apart.
The stations—which didn’t so much scan as photograph books—had been custom-built by Google from the sheet metal up. Each one could digitize books at a rate of 1,000 pages per hour. The book would lie in a specially designed motorized cradle that would adjust to the spine, locking it in place. Above, there was an array of lights and at least $1,000 worth of optics, including four cameras, two pointed at each half of the book, and a range-finding LIDAR that overlaid a three-dimensional laser grid on the book’s surface to capture the curvature of the paper. The human operator would turn pages by hand—no machine could be as quick and gentle—and fire the cameras by pressing a foot pedal, as though playing at a strange piano.
What made the system so efficient is that it left so much of the work to software. Rather than make sure that each page was aligned perfectly, and flattened, before taking a photo, which was a major source of delays in traditional book-scanning systems, cruder images of curved pages were fed to de-warping algorithms, which used the LIDAR data along with some clever mathematics to artificially bend the text back into straight lines.
At its peak, the project involved about 50 full-time software engineers. They developed optical character-recognition software for turning raw images into text; they wrote de-warping and color-correction and contrast-adjustment routines to make the images easier to process; they developed algorithms to detect illustrations and diagrams in books, to extract page numbers, to turn footnotes into real citations, and, per Brin and Page’s early research, to rank books by relevance. “Books are not part of a network,” Dan Clancy, who was the engineering director on the project during its heyday, has said. “There is a huge research challenge, to understand the relationship between books.”
At a time when the rest of Google was obsessed with making apps more “social”—Google Plus was released in 2011—Books was seen by those who worked on it as one of those projects from the old era, like Search itself, that made good on the company’s mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
It was the first project that Google ever called a “moonshot.” Before the self-driving car and Project Loon—their effort to deliver Internet to Africa via high-altitude balloons—it was the idea of digitizing books that struck the outside world as a wide-eyed dream. Even some Googlers themselves thought of the project as a boondoggle. “There were certainly lots of folks at Google that while we were doing Google Book Search were like, Why are we spending all this money on this project?,” Clancy said to me. “Once Google started being a little more conscious about how it was spending money, it was like, wait, you have $40 million a year, $50 million a year on the cost of scanning? It’s gonna cost us $300 to $400 million before we’re done? What are you thinking? But Larry and Sergey were big supporters.”
In August 2010, Google put out a blog post announcing that there were 129,864,880 books in the world. The company said they were going to scan them all.
Of course, it didn’t quite turn out that way. This particular moonshot fell about a hundred-million books short of the moon. What happened was complicated but how it started was simple: Google did that thing where you ask for forgiveness rather than permission, and forgiveness was not forthcoming. Upon hearing that Google was taking millions of books out of libraries, scanning them, and returning them as if nothing had happened, authors and publishers filed suit against the company, alleging, as the authors put it simply in their initial complaint, “massive copyright infringement.”
* * *
When Google started scanning, they weren’t actually setting out to build a digital library where you could read books in their entirety; that idea would come later. Their original goal was just to let you search books. For books in copyright, all they would show you were “snippets,” just a few sentences of context around your search terms. They likened their service to a card catalog.
Google thought that creating a card catalog was protected by “fair use,” the same doctrine of copyright law that lets a scholar excerpt someone’s else’s work in order to talk about it. “A key part of the line between what’s fair use and what’s not is transformation,” Google’s lawyer, David Drummond, has said. “Yes, we’re making a copy when we digitize. But surely the ability to find something because a term appears in a book is not the same thing as reading the book. That’s why Google Books is a different product from the book itself.”
It was important for Drummond to be right. Statutory damages for “willful infringement” of a copyright can run as high as $150,000 for each work infringed. Google’s potential liability for copying tens of millions of books could have run into the trillions of dollars. “Google had some reason to fear that it was betting the firm on its fair-use defense,” Pamela Samuelson, a law professor at UC Berkeley, wrote in 2011. Copyright owners pounced.
They had good reason to. Instead of asking for anyone’s permission, Google had plundered libraries. This seemed obviously wrong: If you wanted to copy a book, you had to have the right to copy it—you had to have the damn copyright. Letting Google get away with the wholesale copying of every book in America struck them as setting a dangerous precedent, one that might well render their copyrights worthless. An advocacy group called the Authors Guild, and several book authors, filed a class action lawsuit against Google on behalf of everyone with a U.S. copyright interest in a book. (A group of publishers filed their own lawsuit but joined the Authors Guild class action shortly thereafter.)
There’s actually a long tradition of technology companies disregarding intellectual-property rights as they invent new ways to distribute content. In the early 1900s, makers of the “piano rolls” that control player pianos ignored copyrights in sheet music and were sued by music publishers. The same thing happened with makers of vinyl records and early purveyors of commercial radio. In the 60s, cable operators re-aired broadcast TV signals without first getting permission and found themselves in costly litigation. Movie studios sued VCR makers. Music labels sued KazaA and Napster.
As Tim Wu pointed out in a 2003 law review article, what usually becomes of these battles—what happened with piano rolls, with records, with radio, and with cable—isn’t that copyright holders squash the new technology. Instead, they cut a deal and start making money from it. Often this takes the form of a “compulsory license” in which, for example, musicians are required to license their work to the piano-roll maker, but in exchange, the piano-roll maker has to pay a fixed fee, say two cents per song, for every roll they produce. Musicians get a new stream of income, and the public gets to hear their favorite songs on the player piano. “History has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests,” Wu writes.
But even if everyone typically ends up ahead, each new cycle starts with rightsholders fearful they’re being displaced by the new technology. When the VCR came out, film executives lashed out. “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone,” Jack Valenti, then the president of the MPAA, testified before Congress. The major studios sued Sony, arguing that with the VCR, the company was trying to build an entire business on intellectual property theft. But Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. became famous for its holding that as long as a copying device was capable of “substantial noninfringing uses”--like someone watching home movies—its makers couldn’t be held liable for copyright infringement.
“There was an opportunity to do something extraordinary for readers and academics in this country.”The Sony case forced the movie industry to accept the existence of VCRs. Not long after, they began to see the device as an opportunity. “The VCR turned out to be one of the most lucrative inventions—for movie producers as well as hardware manufacturers—since movie projectors,” one commentator put it in 2000.
It only took a couple of years for the authors and publishers who sued Google to realize that there was enough middle ground to make everyone happy. This was especially true when you focused on the back catalog, on out-of-print works, instead of books still on store shelves. Once you made that distinction, it was possible to see the whole project in a different light. Maybe Google wasn’t plundering anyone’s work. Maybe they were giving it a new life. Google Books could turn out to be for out-of-print books what the VCR had been for movies out of the theater.
If that was true, you wouldn’t actually want to stop Google from scanning out-of-print books—you’d want to encourage it. In fact, you’d want them to go beyond just showing snippets to actually selling those books as digital downloads. Out-of-print books, almost by definition, were commercial dead weight. If Google, through mass digitization, could make a new market for them, that would be a real victory for authors and publishers. “We realized there was an opportunity to do something extraordinary for readers and academics in this country,” Richard Sarnoff, who was then Chairman of the American Association of Publishers, said at the time. “We realized that we could light up the out-of-print backlist of this industry for two things: discovery and consumption.”
But once you had that goal in mind, the lawsuit itself—which was about whether Google could keep scanning and displaying snippets—began to seem small time. Suppose the Authors Guild won: they were unlikely to recoup anything more than the statutory minimum in damages; and what good would it do to stop Google from providing snippets of old books? If anything those snippets might drive demand. And suppose Google won: Authors and publishers would get nothing, and all readers would get for out-of-print books would be snippets—not access to full texts.
REMEMBER---THE WRITER'S GUILD IS TIED TO OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% TRADE GUILDS----THEY ARE THOSE 5% PLAYERS----THIS LAWSUIT IS NOT THE PUBLIC POLICY GORILLA FOR 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
The plaintiffs, in other words, had gotten themselves into a pretty unusual situation. They didn’t want to lose their own lawsuit—but they didn’t want to win it either.
* * *
The basic problem with out-of-print books is that it’s unclear who owns most of them. An author might have signed a book deal with their publisher 40 years ago; that contract stipulated that the rights revert to the author after the book goes out of print, but required the author to send a notice to that effect, and probably didn’t say anything about digital rights; and all this was recorded on some pieces of paper that nobody has.
It’s been estimated that about half the books published between 1923 and 1963 are actually in the public domain—it’s just that no one knows which half. Copyrights back then had to be renewed, and often the rightsholder wouldn’t bother filing the paperwork; if they did, the paperwork could be lost. The cost of figuring out who owns the rights to a given book can end up being greater than the market value of the book itself. “To have people go and research each one of these titles,” Sarnoff said to me, “It’s not just Sisyphean—it’s an impossible task economically.” Most out-of-print books are therefore locked up, if not by copyright then by inconvenience.
THINK ABOUT THE LEGAL TERM OF 'PUBLIC DOMAIN'----IF GLOBAL GOOGLE DIGITIZES AND HARD BOOKS DISAPPEAR AND WE LOSE OUR ABILITY TO ACCESS INTERNET----IS THIS REALLY 'PUBLIC DOMAIN'? PUBLIC LIBRARIES ARE 'PUBLIC DOMAIN'.
The tipping point toward a settlement of Authors Guild v. Google was the realization that it offered a way to skirt this problem entirely. Authors Guild was a class action lawsuit, and the class included everyone who held an American copyright in one or more books. In a class action, the named plaintiffs litigate on behalf of the whole class (though anyone who wants to can opt out).
So a settlement of the Authors Guild case could theoretically bind just about every author and publisher with a book in an American library. In particular, you could craft a deal in which copyright owners, as a class, agreed to release any claims against Google for scanning and displaying their books, in exchange for a cut of the revenue on sales of those books.
CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BAD FOR 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE---THE LAWYERS WIN. THESE POLICIES ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO CLOSE THE BOOK ON LEGAL ISSUES ---THIS ONE TIED TO DIGITIZING THE ENTIRE PUBLIC DOMAIN OF BOOKS----THIS WAS A 5% PLAYER WORKING FOR GLOBAL BANKING 1%.
“If you have a kind of an institutional problem,” said Jeff Cunard, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton who represented the publishers in the case, “you can address the issue through a class-action settlement mechanism, which releases all past claims and develops a solution on a going-forward basis. And I think the genius here was of those who saw this as a way of addressing the problem of out-of-print books and liberating them from the dusty corners to which they’d been consigned.”
It was a kind of hack. If you could get the class on board with your settlement, and if you could convince a judge to approve it—a step required by law, because you want to make sure the class representatives are acting in the class’s best interests—then you could in one stroke cut the Gordian knot of ambiguous rights to old books. With the class action settlement, authors and publishers who stayed in the class would in effect be saying to Google, “go ahead.”
Naturally, they’d have to get something in return. And that was the clever part. At the heart of the settlement was a collective licensing regime for out-of-print books. Authors and publishers could opt out their books at any time. For those who didn’t, Google would be given wide latitude to display and sell their books, but in return, 63 percent of the revenues would go into escrow with a new entity called the Book Rights Registry. The Registry’s job would be to distribute funds to rightsholders as they came forward to claim their works; in ambiguous cases, part of the money would be used to figure out who actually owned the rights.
“Book publishing isn’t the healthiest industry in the world, and individual authors don’t make any money out of out-of-print books,” Cunard said to me. “Not that they would have made gazillions of dollars” with Google Books and the Registry, “but they would at least have been paid something for it. And most authors actually want their books to be read.”
What became known as the Google Books Search Amended Settlement Agreement came to 165 pages and more than a dozen appendices. It took two and a half years to hammer out the details. Sarnoff described the negotiations as “four-dimensional chess” between the authors, publishers, libraries, and Google. “Everyone involved,” he said to me, “and I mean everyone—on all sides of this issue—thought that if we were going to get this through, this would be the single most important thing they did in their careers.” Ultimately the deal put Google on the hook for about $125 million, including a one-time $45 million payout to the copyright holders of books it had scanned—something like $60 per book—along with $15.5 million in legal fees to the publishers, $30 million to the authors, and $34.5 million toward creating the Registry.
But it also set the terms for how out-of-print books, newly freed, would be displayed and sold. Under the agreement, Google would be able to preview up to 20 percent of a given book to entice individual users to buy, and it would be able to offer downloadable copies for sale, with the prices determined by an algorithm or by the individual rightsholder, in price bins initially ranging from $1.99 to $29.99. All the out-of-print books would be packaged into an “institutional subscription database” that would be sold to universities, where students and faculty could search and read the full collection for free. And in §4.8(a), the agreement describes in bland legalese the creation of an incomparable public utility, the “public-access service” that would be deployed on terminals to local libraries across the country.
Sorting out the details had taken years of litigation and then years of negotiation, but now, in 2011, there was a plan—a plan that seemed to work equally well for everyone at the table. As Samuelson, the Berkeley law professor, put it in a paper at the time, “The proposed settlement thus looked like a win-win-win: the libraries would get access to millions of books, Google would be able to recoup its investment in GBS, and authors and publishers would get a new revenue stream from books that had been yielding zero returns. And legislation would be unnecessary to bring about this result.”
In this, she wrote, it was “perhaps the most adventuresome class action settlement ever attempted.” But to her way of thinking, that was the very reason it should fail.
* * *
The publication of the Amended Settlement Agreement to the Authors Guild case was headline news. It was quite literally a big deal—a deal that would involve the shakeup of an entire industry. Authors, publishers, Google’s rivals, legal scholars, librarians, the U.S. government, and the interested public paid attention to the case’s every move. When the presiding judge, Denny Chin, put out a call for responses to the proposed settlement, responses came in droves.
Those who had been at the table crafting the agreement had expected some resistance, but not the “parade of horribles,” as Sarnoff described it, that they eventually saw. The objections came in many flavors, but they all started with the sense that the settlement was handing to Google, and Google alone, an awesome power. “Did we want the greatest library that would ever exist to be in the hands of one giant corporation, which could really charge almost anything it wanted for access to it?”, Robert Darnton, then president of Harvard’s library, has said.
Darnton had initially been supportive of Google’s scanning project, but the settlement made him wary. The scenario he and many others feared was that the same thing that had happened to the academic journal market would happen to the Google Books database. The price would be fair at first, but once libraries and universities became dependent on the subscription, the price would rise and rise until it began to rival the usurious rates that journals were charging, where for instance by 2011 a yearly subscription to the Journal of Comparative Neurology could cost as much as $25,910.
Although academics and library enthusiasts like Darnton were thrilled by the prospect of opening up out-of-print books, they saw the settlement as a kind of deal with the devil. Yes, it would create the greatest library there’s ever been—but at the expense of creating perhaps the largest bookstore, too, run by what they saw as a powerful monopolist. In their view, there had to be a better way to unlock all those books. “Indeed, most elements of the GBS settlement would seem to be in the public interest, except for the fact that the settlement restricts the benefits of the deal to Google,” the Berkeley law professor Pamela Samuelson wrote.
Certainly Google’s competitors felt put out by the deal. Microsoft, predictably, argued that it would further cement Google’s position as the world’s dominant search engine, by making it the only one that could legally mine out-of-print books. By using those books in results for user’s long-tail queries, Google would have an unfair advantage over competitors. Google’s response to this objection was simply that anyone could scan books and show them in search results if they wanted—and that doing so was fair use. (Earlier this year, a Second Circuit court ruled finally that Google’s scanning of books and display of snippets was, in fact, fair use.)
“There was this hypothesis that there was this huge competitive advantage,” Clancy said to me, regarding Google’s access to the books corpus. But he said that the data never ended up being a core part of any project at Google, simply because the amount of information on the web itself dwarfed anything available in books. “You don’t need to go to a book to know when Woodrow Wilson was born,” he said. The books data was helpful, and interesting for researchers, but “the degree to which the naysayers characterized this as being the strategic motivation for the whole project—that was malarkey.”
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN 99% WE THE PEOPLE NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS TO INTERNET??????
Amazon, for its part, worried that the settlement allowed Google to set up a bookstore that no one else could. Anyone else who wanted to sell out-of-print books, they argued, would have to clear rights on a book-by-book basis, which was as good as impossible, whereas the class action agreement gave Google a license to all of the books at once.
This objection got the attention of the Justice Department, in particular the Antitrust division, who began investigating the settlement. In a statement filed with the court, the DOJ argued that the settlement would give Google a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. That’s because for Google’s competitors to get the same rights to those books, they’d basically have to go through the exact same bizarre process: scan them en masse, get sued in a class action, and try to settle. “Even if there were reason to think history could repeat itself in this unlikely fashion,” the DOJ wrote, “it would scarcely be sound policy to encourage deliberate copyright violations and additional litigation.”
Google’s best defense was that the whole point of antitrust law was to protect consumers, and, as one of their lawyers put it, “From the perspective of consumers, one way to get something is unquestionably better than no way to get it at all.” Out-of-print books had been totally inaccessible online; now there’d be a way to buy them. How did that hurt consumers? A person closely involved in the settlement said to me, “Each of the publishers would go into the Antitrust Division and say well but look, Amazon has 80 percent of the e-book market. Google has 0 percent or 1 percent. This is allowing someone else to compete in the digital books space against Amazon. And so you should be regarding this as pro-competitive, not anti-competitive. Which seemed also very sensible to me. But it was like they were talking to a brick wall. And that reaction was shameful.”
The DOJ held fast. In some ways, the parties to the settlement didn’t have a good way out: no matter how “non-exclusive” they tried to make the deal, it was in effect a deal that only Google could get—because Google was the only defendant in the case. For a settlement in a class action titled Authors Guild v. Google to include not just Google but, say, every company that wanted to become a digital bookseller, would be to stretch the class action mechanism past its breaking point.
This was a point that the DOJ kept coming back to. The settlement was already a stretch, they argued: the original case had been about whether Google could show snippets of books it had scanned, and here you had a settlement agreement that went way beyond that question to create an elaborate online marketplace, one that depended on the indefinite release of copyrights by authors and publishers who might be difficult to find, particularly for books long out of print. “It is an attempt,” they wrote, “to use the class-action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation.”
The DOJ objections left the settlement in a double bind: Focus the deal on Google and you get accused of being anticompetitive. Try to open it up and you get accused of stretching the law governing class actions.
The lawyers who had crafted the settlement tried to thread the needle. The DOJ acknowledged as much. “The United States recognizes that the parties to the ASA are seeking to use the class action mechanism to overcome legal and structural challenges to the emergence of a robust and diverse marketplace for digital books,” they wrote. “Despite this worthy goal, the United States has reluctantly concluded that use of the class-action mechanism in the manner proposed by the ASA is a bridge too far.”
Their argument was compelling, but the fact that the settlement was ambitious didn’t mean it was illegal—just unprecedented. Years later, another class-action settlement that involved opt-out, “forward-looking business arrangements” very similar to the kind set up by the Google settlement was approved by another district court. That case involved the prospective exploitation of publicity rights of retired NFL players; the settlement made those rights available to an entity that would license them and distribute the proceeds. “What was interesting about it,” says Cunard, who was also involved in that litigation, “was that not a single opponent of the settlement ever raised Judge Chin’s decision or any of the oppositions to it with respect to that settlement being ‘beyond the scope of the pleadings.’” Had that case been decided ten years ago, Cunard said, it would have been “a very important and substantial precedent,” significantly undercutting the “bridge too far” argument against the Authors Guild agreement. “It demonstrates that the law is a very fluid thing,” he said. “Somebody’s got to be first.”
In the end, the DOJ’s intervention likely spelled the end of the settlement agreement. No one is quite sure why the DOJ decided to take a stand instead of remaining neutral. Dan Clancy, the Google engineering lead on the project who helped design the settlement, thinks that it was a particular brand of objector—not Google’s competitors but “sympathetic entities” you’d think would be in favor of it, like library enthusiasts, academic authors, and so on—that ultimately flipped the DOJ. “I don’t know how the settlement would have transpired if those naysayers hadn’t been so vocal,” he told me. “It’s not clear to me that if the libraries and the Bob Darntons and the Pam Samuelsons of the world hadn’t been so active that the Justice Department ever would have become involved, because it just would have been Amazon and Microsoft bitching about Google. Which is like yeah, tell me something new.”
JUST HOW MUCH OF US LIBRARY AND UNIVERSITY BOOK ASSETS DID GOOGLE SCAN BEFORE THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT BECAUSE IT SEEMS THEY HAD TIME TO DIGITIZE MOST OF US BOOK ASSETS BEFORE THESE DOJ LEGAL RULINGS.
Whatever the motivation, the DOJ said its piece and that seemed to carry the day. In his ruling concluding that the settlement was not “fair, adequate, and reasonable” under the rules governing class actions, Judge Denny Chin recited the DOJ’s objections and suggested that to fix them, you’d either have to change the settlement to be an opt-in arrangement—which would render it toothless—or try to accomplish the same thing in Congress.
“While the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many,” Chin wrote in his decision, “the ASA would simply go too far.”
* * *
At the close of the “fairness hearing,” where people spoke for and against the settlement, Judge Chin asked, as if merely out of curiosity, just how many objections had there been? And how many people had opted out of the class? The answers were more than 500, and more than 6,800.
Reasonable people could disagree about the legality of the settlement; there were strong arguments on either side, and it was by no means obvious to observers which side Judge Chin was going to come down on. What seemed to turn the tide against the settlement was the reaction of the class itself. “In my more than twenty-five years of practice in class action litigation, I’ve never seen a settlement reacted to that way, with that many objectors,” said Michael Boni, who was the lead negotiator for the authors class in the case. That strong reaction was what likely led to the DOJ’s intervention; it turned public opinion against the agreement; and it may have led Chin to look for ways to kill it. After all, the question before him was whether the agreement was fair to class members. The more class members came out of the woodwork, and the more upset they seemed to be, the more reason he’d have to think that the settlement didn’t represent their interests.
The irony is that so many people opposed the settlement in ways that suggested they fundamentally believed in what Google was trying to do. One of Pamela Samuelson’s main objections was that Google was going to be able to sell books like hers, whereas she thought they should be made available for free. (The fact that she, like any author under the terms of the settlement, could set her own books’ price to zero was not consolation enough, because “orphan works” with un-findable authors would still be sold for a price.) In hindsight, it looks like the classic case of perfect being the enemy of the good: surely having the books made available at all would be better than keeping them locked up—even if the price for doing so was to offer orphan works for sale. In her paper concluding that the settlement went too far, Samuelson herself even wrote, “It would be a tragedy not to try to bring this vision to fruition, now that it is so evident that the vision is realizable.”
“This is not important enough for the Congress to somehow adjust copyright law.”Many of the objectors indeed thought that there would be some other way to get to the same outcome without any of the ickiness of a class action settlement. A refrain throughout the fairness hearing was that releasing the rights of out-of-print books for mass digitization was more properly “a matter for Congress.” When the settlement failed, they pointed to proposals by the U.S. Copyright Office recommending legislation that seemed in many ways inspired by it, and to similar efforts in the Nordic countries to open up out-of-print books, as evidence that Congress could succeed where the settlement had failed.
Of course, nearly a decade later, nothing of the sort has actually happened. “It has got no traction,” Cunard said to me about the Copyright Office’s proposal, “and is not going to get a lot of traction now I don’t think.” Many of the people I spoke to who were in favor of the settlement said that the objectors simply weren’t practical-minded—they didn’t seem to understand how things actually get done in the world. “They felt that if not for us and this lawsuit, there was some other future where they could unlock all these books, because Congress would pass a law or something. And that future... as soon as the settlement with Guild, nobody gave a shit about this anymore,” Clancy said to me.
It certainly seems unlikely that someone is going to spend political capital—especially today—trying to change the licensing regime for books, let alone old ones. “This is not important enough for the Congress to somehow adjust copyright law,” Clancy said. “It’s not going to get anyone elected. It’s not going to create a whole bunch of jobs.” It’s no coincidence that a class action against Google turned out to be perhaps the only plausible venue for this kind of reform: Google was the only one with the initiative, and the money, to make it happen. “If you want to look at this in a raw way,” Allan Adler, in-house counsel for the publishers, said to me, “a deep pocketed, private corporate actor was going to foot the bill for something that everyone wanted to see.” Google poured resources into the project, not just to scan the books but to dig up and digitize old copyright records, to negotiate with authors and publishers, to foot the bill for a Books Rights Registry. Years later, the Copyright Office has gotten nowhere with a proposal that re-treads much the same ground, but whose every component would have to be funded with Congressional appropriations.
HMMMMM, IS NOT TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT NOTHING BUT COPYRIGHT LAW? OH, WE SEE WHAT IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RULING.
I asked Bob Darnton, who ran Harvard’s library during the Google Books litigation and who spoke out against the settlement, whether he had any regrets about what ended up happening. “Insofar as I have a regret, it is that the attempts to out-Google Google are so limited by copyright law,” he said. He’s been working on another project to scan library books; the scanning has been limited to books in the public domain. “I’m in favor of copyright, don’t get me wrong, but really to leave books out of the public domain for more than a century--to keep most American literature behind copyright barrier,” he said, “I think is crazy.”
BUT ISN'T THE GOAL OF GLOBAL BANKING % TO DO JUST THAT FOREVER MR HARVARD BOB DARNTON?
The first copyright statute in the United States, passed in 1790, was called An Act for the Encouragement of Learning. Copyright terms were to last fourteen years, with the option to renew for another fourteen, but only if the author was alive at the end of the first term. The idea was to strike a “pragmatic bargain” between authors and the reading public. Authors would get a limited monopoly on their work so they could make a living from it; but their work would retire quickly into the public domain.
Somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them.Copyright terms have been radically extended in this country largely to keep pace with Europe, where the standard has long been that copyrights last for the life of the author plus 50 years. But the European idea, “It’s based on natural law as opposed to positive law,” Lateef Mtima, a copyright scholar at Howard University Law School, said. “Their whole thought process is coming out of France and Hugo and those guys that like, you know, ‘My work is my enfant,’” he said, “and the state has absolutely no right to do anything with it--kind of a Lockean point of view.” As the world has flattened, copyright laws have converged, lest one country be at a disadvantage by freeing its intellectual products for exploitation by the others. And so the American idea of using copyright primarily as a vehicle, per the constitution, “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” not to protect authors, has eroded to the point where today we’ve locked up nearly every book published after 1923.
HERE IS GLOBAL BANKING 1% IVY LEAGUE HEDGE FUND HOWARD UNIVERSITY PRETENDING IT IS PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS ----SAYING THE WORLD IS FLAT AND LOCKEAN POINT OF VIEW ---I AM MAN-----FORGET ABOUT IT.
HOWARD UNIVERSITY LAW SAYS FORGET I AM MAN.
“The greatest tragedy is we are still exactly where we were on the orphan works question. That stuff is just sitting out there gathering dust and decaying in physical libraries, and with very limited exceptions,” Mtima said, “nobody can use them. So everybody has lost and no one has won.”
WHY MTIMA DO YOU THINK NO ONE CAN USE THEM?????
After the settlement failed, Clancy told me that at Google “there was just this air let out of the balloon.” Despite eventually winning Authors Guild v. Google, and having the courts declare that displaying snippets of copyrighted books was fair use, the company all but shut down its scanning operation.
It was strange to me, the idea that somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25-million books and nobody is allowed to read them. It’s like that scene at the end of the first Indiana Jones movie where they put the Ark of the Covenant back on a shelf somewhere, lost in the chaos of a vast warehouse. It’s there. The books are there. People have been trying to build a library like this for ages—to do so, they’ve said, would be to erect one of the great humanitarian artifacts of all time—and here we’ve done the work to make it real and we were about to give it to the world and now, instead, it’s 50 or 60 petabytes on disk, and the only people who can see it are half a dozen engineers on the project who happen to have access because they’re the ones responsible for locking it up.
I asked someone who used to have that job, what would it take to make the books viewable in full to everybody? I wanted to know how hard it would have been to unlock them. What’s standing between us and a digital public library of 25 million volumes?
You’d get in a lot of trouble, they said, but all you’d have to do, more or less, is write a single database query. You’d flip some access control bits from off to on. It might take a few minutes for the command to propagate.