-O’Reilly “Radar” blog, April 17, 2009 by Pamela Samuelson
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/04/legally-speaking-the-dead-soul.html
The Book Search agreement is not really a settlement of a dispute over whether scanning books to index them is fair use. It is a major restructuring of the book industry’s future without meaningful government oversight. The market for digitized orphan books could be competitiveֽ but will not be if this settlement is approved as is.
-The New York Times “Bits” blog, April 17, 2009 by Miguel Helft
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/opposition-to-google-books-settlement/?scp=6&sq=university%20california&st=cse
Ms. Samuelson also points out that many authors of orphan works may want to grant far greater access to their own books that would be allowed by the settlement. “If asked, the authors of orphan books in major research libraries might well prefer for their books to be available under Creative Commons licenses or put in the public domain so that fellow researchers could have greater access to themֽ” Ms. Samuelson wrote.
-The Recorder, April 20, 2009 by Zusha Elinson
http://www.law.com (requires registration; go to G:\Law School in the News\News Clips for article)
Pamela Samuelson said the issue of orphaned works should be handled by legislators, not a settlement in a class action. “Usually if you want a compulsory license you have to go to Congress,” she said. Samuelson said she favors a scenario in which the Internet Archive and other digital librariesֽ not just Google, would get a license to scan the books and make them available online.
-San Jose Mercury News, April 28, 2009 by Elise Ackerman
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12248048?source=rss
“It is clear to us that the settlementֽ if approvedֽ will shape the future of readingֽ researchֽ writing and publication practices for decades to comeֽ” Professor Pamela Samuelson of the University of California-Berkeley School of Law wrote in an April 27 letter to the judge.