Over the past couple of days, there have been quite a few interesting postings about the Google Print controversy over on Dave Farber’s IP List. There’s a lot of the usual back and forth, but a couple of postings that give some background on possible legal precedent. Sid Karin argues that the mp3.com case is the guiding precedent, while Cindy Cohn of the EFF believes that Kelly v. ArribaSoft will be the more relevant. Seth Finkelstein points to a series of legal articles over on the Scrivener’s Error blog, which focuses on procedural aspects of the various legal complaints. Doug Masson points to his 1995 article on the difficulties inherent in adapting copyright law to new technologies.
Meanwhile, there are lots of us engaged in less substantial attempts at persuasion, including an opinion piece by Cindy Cohn, with a response from Lauren Weinstein; another post in favor from Julian Dibell, again rebutted by Lauren Weinstein. There are also pro-Google opinions from John Levine and David Reed, and an argument against from David Pakman, to which I replied.
Clearly this subject is generating a lot of heat. Probably time to give it a rest, since the parties are really just negotiating through lawyers and press releases, and eventually, this will get sorted out without the help of all us keyboard quarterbacks. I’ll try to post on the subject in future only if there are more facts to discuss, not just more opinions. (However, radar-wise, I will say that this is one of the most important cases in copyright today, one that will have enormous implications for the future of publishing, one way or another. So it’s definitely worth following.)