-The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 22, 2011 by Jennifer Howard
http://chronicle.com/article/Judge-Rejects-Settlement-in/126864/
He went on to quote from a statement submitted by Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, who wrote that academic authors “are committed to maximizing access to knowledge,” while the plaintiffs “are institutionally committed to maximizing profits.”
-The New York Times, March 22, 2011 by Miguel Helft
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/technology/23google.html?scp=1&sq=Berkeley&st=nyt
“Even though it is efficient for Google to make all the books available, the orphan works and unclaimed books problem should be addressed by Congress, not by the private settlement of a lawsuit,” said Pamela Samuelson.
-Contra Costa Times, March 22, 2011 by Brandon Bailey
http://www.contracostatimes.com/business/ci_17673453?nclick_check=1
Other critics praised the judge for rejecting a plan they viewed as sharply contradicting the nation’s copyright laws. “That’s what copyright law stands for. Nobody gets to use your work without your permission,” said Pamela Samuelson.
-The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 2011 by Marc Parry
http://chronicle.com/article/A-Copyright-Expert-Who-Spoke/126877/
“Libraries have been very, very careful over time about protecting the privacy interests of their user base. And Google was not willing to make commitments to essentially accomplish an equivalent level of protection. When we’re talking about a corpus of books that millions of people in the U.S. would be using, not to have any serious privacy commitments here really was distressing.”
-Inside Higher Ed, March 23, 2011 by Steve Kolowich
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/23/judge_rejects_google_books_settlement
Samuelson had argued that it would be inappropriate for Google and the publishers to profit from the use of orphaned scholarly works—which she believes comprise a disproportionately large number of the orphans—when the academics who wrote them probably intended that they be as freely accessible as possible.
-The New York Times, March 23, 2011 by Claire Cain Miller
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/business/media/24google.html?_r=1
“The next thing to do is think about going to Congress and getting legislation that would make particularly orphan works available to the public.”
-San Jose Mercury News, March 27, 2011 by Chris O’Brien
http://www.mercurynews.com/chris-obrien
“The settlement would give them a monopoly that they would potentially use to fix prices,” said Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law at UC Berkeley, who has been among the most vocal opponents of the deal. “When the DOJ (Department of Justice) came out against the settlement that was a very significant development.”
-Beyond Chron, March 29, 2011 by Irvin Muchnick
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9031
The federal government, after constructively intervening in Google, should find a way to coordinate the cases and spur Congress to codify compulsory licenses…. In an email exchange with Samuelson, a fellow Berkeleyan, she expressed sympathy for my viewpoint. “I am working on legislative alternatives,” Pam told me, “and an extended collective licensing regime is an interesting idea.”