“The publishing industry is united behind this lawsuit against Google and united in the fight to defend their rights,” AAP President and former Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder said in a statement. “While authors and publishers know how useful Google’s search engine can be and think the Print Library could be an excellent resource, the bottom line is that under its current plan, Google is seeking to make millions of dollars by freeloading on the talent and property of authors and publishers.”
This comes after Google removed 20.549 videos from YouTube (Spanish), after being sued by a Japanese holding who defends the rights of the authors, because of an infraction related with intelectual property (here in English from BBC, here from PC World and here from Tail Rank).
In Spain, SGAE (General Society for Authors and Editors) is planning to install a new tax on every hard disk (link in Spanish)-whether they are on computers or not- that you purchase just in case you are going to copy protected material in them. Tribunals have issued sentences against the old canon (link in Spanish)in which the hard disks and other high capacity devices were not included. SGAE won [not earned] €29 millions only in 2004 and it increased 30% in 2005. The percentage is decided on average estimations on what would the normal share of clients using those means to archive forbidden material. There are a lot of campaigns and on line petitions against the canon in internet.
Básicamente lo que pasa es que Google después de haber sido obligada a retirar casi 30.000 vídeos de YouTube por la SGAE Japonesa, ahora ha sido demandada también por la Asociación americana de Editores, debido a su nuevo proyecto que intentaba subir a Internet los libros de diferentes universidades. Los editores quieren dinero a cambio de la millonada que se va a llevar Google.
En cuanto a España, como seguimos a vueltas con el canon de la SGAE, aquí teneis un vídeo de traca que he encontrado en Internet…
Aquí teneis el link del video.
UPDATE: Javier de la Cueva from Derecho de Internet points me another sentence which is more recent that the one I pointed to above, in fact, from Sept 26th, 2006. The Judge failed to recognise his rights to the consumer but later the Provincial Audience has revoked that, recognising againthose rights.