Todays filings were a lot quicker to sort through than yesterday’s. For one thing, many of them were yesterday’s: I counted sixteen duplicates of previous scans. For another, many more of them fit into well-trodden templates:
- Thirty-five more German publishers, four more French publishers, two more New Zealand authors, four Swedish publishers, seven more Dutch publishers, and an Italian publisher filled objections substantively identical to ones we’ve seen before.
- Seven German, Austrian, and Hungarian publishers filed their own objections substantively identical to one I’d seen before; I think the connection is that they’re all affiliated with Westermann
- Ten more members of the Hachette publishing group filed their own versions of an objection made by other members of the group.
In terms of genuinely new filings, the day brought:
- CUNY is a real hotbed of accessibility. Two more groups affiliated with CUNY filed letters supporting the settlement for its pro-access features.
- The University of Michigan Library, another Google scanning partner, filed a letter in support, penned by Paul Courant. In addition to familiar accessibility themes, it describes preservation and curation benefits.
- Jo Tatchell, from Rookery Nook, Hazelbury Hill, Box, Wiltshire (I love these English place names!) filed a brief letter of concern about royalty rates and the international definition of “in print.” Authors Steven Cox, Ann Douglas, Susan Gordon, Diana Kimpton, and Michael Kincaid also submitted short objection letters, but from less euphonious addresses.
- The Lewis/Hyde motion to intervene—which has already been denied—showed up on the electronic docket.
- The American Association of Petroleum Geologists filed a letter objection. Among other things, they’re ticked off that even as they were in the Partner Program, Google was scanning without permission their books from library shelves.
- Avotaynu, a Jewish genealogical publisher, filed a one-page letter of objection.
- Further Japanese objections—generally similar to ones already noted here—from authors Jiro Makino and Iwao Kidokoro and publisher Kobushi Shobo.
- Author David Meininger, represented by counsel, filed an objection that targets some familiar themes: Registry oversight, subclasses of the plaintiff class, excessive attorney fees, and the inadequacy of the cash payments in comparison with the statutory damages available under copyright law.
- Author Michael Perry of Inkling Books—one of the original group of authors who asked for and won the four-month delay—filed a longer, more discursive letter to the court. It has a gentle tone (it thanks the judge for “taking time out of your busy schedule to read my remarks”) but is strongly critical of the settlement.
- A joint filing from the attorney generals of Pennsylvania, Washington, and Massachusetts raises objections to the treatment of unclaimed funds much like those raised by the AGs of Connecticut and Texas. I found this letter to be particularly clear; if you’re trying to figure out what the unclaimed-funds argument is about, start with this one.
And that brings us up to now. It’s not clear how much else is sitting in the court’s files—the uploading today stopped right on the button at 5:00, so I don’t think the end of the uploads today signifies anything other than the arrival of the weekend.