The Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.
Filing
45
JOINT APPENDIX, volume 5 of 6, (pp. 1201-1500), on behalf of Appellant Jim Bouton, Joseph Goulden, Betty Miles and The Authors Guild, FILED. Service date 04/07/2014 by CM/ECF.[1196280] [13-4829]
A-1401
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 21 of 31
Cash Payments and future revenues earned for unreverted out-of-print Books will be split
between the author and publisher of the Book as follows: (a) for Books first published
prior to 1987, the Registry will pay 65% to the author and 35% to the publisher; and (b)
for Books first published during or after 1987, the Registry will pay each of the author
and the publisher 50%. A-P § 6.2(c).12 In addition, for Books that are not reverted and
are not works-for-hire, in general, both the author and the publisher have the right to
manage the Books. (See A-P for further details concerning the A-P.)
E.
Other Provisions.
1.
Public Access Service.
The Parties have agreed to provide, upon request, free access to the entire
subscription database at a computer terminal in every public library building in the
United States that requests one and at least one computer terminal at each not-for-profit
higher educational institution. SA §§ 1.66, 1.119, 4.8. Anyone in any urban or small
town library building in the U.S. could have free, full access to the entire database of
Books.
2.
Non-Display Uses.
In addition to the Display Uses, Google will be permitted to make “
Non-Display
Uses” Books, including full-text indexing (without displaying the text), geographic
of
indexing, algorithmic listings of key terms for chapters of Books, and other internal
research. SA §§ 1.91, 3.4.
12
Based on discovery taken by the author plaintiffs, most form book publishing
contracts in the late 1980s began to include express electronic rights grants to the
publisher. Counsel for the authors and publishers thus agreed that authors would receive
a greater revenue split for out of print Books published prior to 1987 than those published
thereafter.
20
A-1402
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
3.
Filed 08/26/13 Page 22 of 31
Security Provisions.
Google and plaintiffs developed security standards to prevent security breaches
and unauthorized use of Google’books database. SA §§ 8.1-8.2 and Attachment D.
s
The SA provides remedies to Rightsholders for security breaches and unauthorized
access. SA §§ 8.3-8.7.
4.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism.
If disputes concerning the Settlement arise among Rightsholders and Google or
the libraries, they will be subject to arbitration. Examples are disputes (1) between
authors and publishers of the same Books; (2) over claimed security breaches; (3) over
whether a Book is in-print, out-of-print, or in the public domain; and (4) over whether
Google or a participating library has made a use of a Book that is not authorized under
the Settlement. See generally SA Article IX. The Settlement Agreement also provides
that the court will have continuing jurisdiction over other disputes concerning the parties’
obligations under the Settlement Agreement. SA § 17.23. Disputes between publishers
are not subject to arbitration.
5.
Non-Exclusive Rights.
The authorizations granted to Google under the Settlement Agreement are nonexclusive only. Rightsholders retain all their rights to use and license their Books in any
way, including ways identical to those authorized to Google. No authorization under the
Settlement constitutes a transfer of any copyright ownership interest in any Book or
Insert. SA §§ 2.4, 3.1(a).
IV.
COPYRIGHT ISSUES
The Settlement has been the subject of substantial discussion. I would like to
21
A-1403
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 23 of 31
elaborate on my remarks in the Executive Summary regarding the Settlement’treatment
s
of so-called “
orphan works,” I will then address the potential effect of including
and
foreign rightsholders in the Settlement Class on U.S. foreign relations.
A.
The Question of “
Orphan Works”
A number of critics of the Google Book Search Settlement have complained that
the Settlement will confer on Google a monopoly over “
orphan works.”These critics
have stated –
without any evidence –
that “
orphan works” include millions of books,
will
comprising anywhere from 50% to 70% of the books covered by the Settlement. These
percentages are over-inflated, principally because at least some of the critics appear to
have equated the term “
out-of-print books”
with “
orphan works,”
which is erroneous,
and, further, because they incorrectly assume that the rightsholders of out-of-print books
are either unknown or cannot be found.
The term “
orphan works,”
however, has no meaning under the Copyright Act; the
Act only recognizes works only as in-copyright or not in-copyright. That term, however,
has been typically understood and used –
both in the context of legislative proposals
considered by the Congress, including this Committee, over the last several years, as well
as by the Copyright Office – refer to a work for which the copyright owner cannot be
to
identified or found (such as a photograph with no attributed photographer).
Contrary to the use of that term by the Settlement’critics, we start with the
s
principle that published books found in U.S. libraries –
unlike many other types of
copyrighted works – generally quite unlikely to be orphan works. They are published
are
works. They have identifiable authors and publishers. Published books include readily
accessible information as to their author, publisher and date of publication.
22
A-1404
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 24 of 31
Moreover, as to all United States works, the Settlement only covers those that are
“
registered”
with the United States Copyright Office. So, at least with respect to United
States works, the Copyright Office registration is available as an important starting point
in attempting to identify and locate the current copyright owner. There is no reason to
believe that a significant number of the copyright owners of books covered by the
Settlement cannot be identified and found – anyone, including would-be competitors
by
of Google – due diligence efforts are made to do so.
if
Prior to the Settlement, at least for purposes of large scale commercial
exploitation, few such efforts have been made. That is because there has been no
commercial market for a collection of out-of-print books, and thus no incentives to
identify rightsholders of out-of-print books or for them to come forward to associate
themselves with their works for purposes of licensing others to use them. Now, for the
first time, the settlement provides just such a product, and brand new incentives for
rightsholders of out-of-print books to participate. Not only have meaningful, ambitious
efforts been made to locate these rightsholders, those efforts will be continued into the
future by the Registry. In addition and importantly, the prospect of earning money under
the Settlement – the very availability of revenues generated by the Settlement –
and
will
provide powerful incentives for rightsholders to come forward to claim their works.
Once they do so, of course, such works would have identifiable copyright owners and
could not be considered to be “
orphans.”
First, approval of the Settlement required the parties to undertake an
unprecedented, worldwide Notice Program that was designed to reach as many members
of the Settlement Class as possible. As a result of the Notice Program, many
23
A-1405
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 25 of 31
rightsholders of out-of-print books have already claimed their books. Because there is no
deadline to claim one’books through the Settlement, it is reasonable to expect that the
s
numbers of claimed out-of-print books will grow exponentially.
Second, one of the Registry’core missions will be to locate rightsholders of outs
of-print books that have not yet been claimed. This is for the purpose of having the
Registry assist them in claiming their works and, ultimately, to pay to them the revenues
they are owed under the Settlement’revenue models.
s
Also, as noted above, the Registry will want to enter into licensing arrangements
with others, not just Google. For this purpose, the Registry and claiming rightsholders
will want as many rightsholders as possible to come forward and authorize the Registry
to include their books in those arrangements. In this way, there will be a more robust set
of books available for license, which will redound to the benefit of all rightsholders..
The goals of the Notice Program and the Registry are achievable precisely
because the settlement creates meaningful incentives for copyright owners of out-of-print
works to claim their books. The new services authorized by the Registry (which include
the subscriptions and consumer purchase options offered by Google, as well as
alternative, even competing products that others may establish) will begin earning
rightsholders new revenue.
Most authors write for two reasons, for their books to be read, and to be
compensated. Because the Settlement has given new exposure and commercial life to
out-of-print books, authors are more likely to claim their books and the Registry will
have a greater chance of finding them.
What does that mean for the so-called “
orphan books?”We’ already learned
ve
24
A-1406
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 26 of 31
through the Settlement’claiming process that many out-of-print books’parents”
s
“
are
alive and claiming their books. And, as “
parent”
rightsholders claim their books, the
number of books that might arguably be considered “
orphans”
will be dramatically
reduced.
Significantly, the Registry will maintain a publicly accessible database of which
books are claimed. The database will also make public who has claimed those books
(except where the claimant has asked that his or her name not be disclosed). This
database will make it far, far easier than at present for anyone to identify rightsholders of
books and obtain permission to use them. The experiences of the Authors Registry and
the ALCS, reported in the Executive Summary, bear this out. Thus, where it might once
have been difficult to find the copyright owners of books it will now become much more
feasible to license out-of-print books, either through the Registry or directly from their
copyright owners.
Of course, there may still be books whose rightsholders prove difficult to find.
The Settlement is not a panacea. But the facts suggest, contrary to the gloomy scenarios
painted by the critics, that the number of such books ultimately will be quite low.
B.
The Settlement is Wholly Consistent with the International
Obligations of the United States
Questions also have been asked as to whether the Settlement complies with the
international treaty obligations of the United States. These issues have been raised under
two provisions of the 1971 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary & Artistic
Works (the “
Berne Convention” to which the United States adhered effective March 1,
),
25
A-1407
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 27 of 31
1989.13 The first provision is that of national treatment, found in Article 5(1) of the
Berne Convention. The second provision is Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention, which
bans the imposition of certain “
formalities.”Examining both provisions, we believe that
the Settlement is fully consistent with our country’treaty obligations.
s
To begin, the Berne Convention is not itself self-executing in the United States.
In the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA), which implemented the
Berne Convention,14 Congress was crystal clear that the Berne Convention itself does not
create any rights or obligations under U.S. law.15 Thus, if any provision of the enacted
laws of the United States is inconsistent with our country’Berne Convention
s
obligations, the only remedy is for another country to take the United States to the
International Court of Justice, or to invoke the dispute resolution provisions set forth in
13
The United States has entered into other international agreements that incorporate the
United States’
Berne Convention obligations by reference, such as the 1994 GATT
TRIPS agreement. However, because these other agreements are derivative of the Berne
obligations, we do not discuss them separately.
14
102 Stat. 2853-2861.
15
Section 2 of the BCIA provides:
(1) The Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, signed at
Berne, Switzerland, on September 9, 1886, and all acts, protocols, and revisions
thereto (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "Berne Convention") are not selfexecuting under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(2) The obligations of the United States under the Berne Convention may be
performed only pursuant to appropriate domestic law.
(3) The amendments made by this Act, together with the law as it exists on the date of
the enactment of this Act, satisfy the obligations of the United States in adhering
to the Berne Convention and no further rights or interests shall be recognized or
created for that purpose.
Section 3(a) declares:
(a) Relationship with Domestic Law.--The provisions of the Berne Convention-(1) shall be given effect under title 17, as amended by this Act, and any other
relevant provision of Federal or State law, including the common law; and
(2) shall not be enforceable in any action brought pursuant to the provisions of the
Berne Convention itself.
26
A-1408
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 28 of 31
the GATT, leading possibly to a WTO panel. With respect to the pending approval of the
Settlement, the District Court must follow the Copyright Act, and it has no authority to
deviate from it in an effort to comply with its understanding of the United States’
treaty
obligations.
1.
National Treatment
The Settlement is fully consistent with the national treatment principle of Article
5(1) of the Berne Convention,16 which Congress implemented in the BCIA, and is now
enshrined in Section 104 of the Copyright Act, as amended. In the United States, that
principle “
simply assures that if the law of the country of infringement applies to the
scope of substantive copyright protection, that law will be applied uniformly to foreign
and domestic authors.”See Itar-Tass Russian Newspaper Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.,
153 F.3d 82, 89 (2d Cir. 1998). Thus, Article 5(1) applies only to national laws granting
substantive rights. A private settlement agreement is, by definition, not a law nor can it
grant substantive statutory rights. As Congress made clear, only Congress can grant such
rights. The Settlement does not provide or grant any substantive copyright rights; only
Congress can do so. Instead, it is the settlement of copyright litigation between private
parties that provides extensive remedies to members of the class.
Most importantly, the Settlement is careful to treat all covered books identically,
without regard to whether their rightsholders are United States or foreign publishers or
authors. Consistent with Section 104 of the Copyright Act, all copyright owners of books
16
Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention provides:
(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this
Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights
which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well
as the rights specially granted by this Convention.
27
A-1409
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 29 of 31
covered by the Settlement, regardless of their nationality, are entitled to exactly the same
rights and receive exactly the same remedies under the Settlement.
2.
Formalities and the Means of Redress
The Settlement and the class action opt-out procedure do not constitute a
prohibited formality within the meaning of Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention.17 The
term “
formality” not defined in the Article. The World Intellectual Property
is
Organization’guide to the Berne Convention provides some guidance. It states: “
s
The
word 'formality' must be understood in the sense of a condition which is necessary for the
right to exist -- administrative obligations laid down by national law, which is not
fulfilled, lead to loss of copyright.”See WIPO Guide to the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act 1971) at 33 (1978). As the WIPO
drafted the Berne Convention and is charged by the United Nations with administering it,
its views should be entitled to great deference.
The process for reviewing and approving class action settlements under Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure necessarily includes a mechanism to
allow class members to opt out. That requirement of federal law is not a formality. It
cannot lead to a loss of statutory copyright protection under the Copyright Act. Nor is
the Settlement itself or the opt-out procedure of Rule 23(b)(3) an administrative
obligation laid down by national law that is necessary for the copyright right to exist.
17
Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention provides:
The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality;
such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in
the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this
Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the
author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country
where protection is claimed.
28
A-1410
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 30 of 31
The Rule constitutes, instead, a procedural device.
The language of Article 5(2) makes clear that such procedural mechanisms –
which are the means by which copyright infringement suits may be brought and resolved
– exclusively within the province of national law and, as such, can be adopted by
fall
Congress and applied by federal courts consistently with the United States’
obligations.
See Article 5(2) (providing that “ extent of protection, as well as the means of redress
the
afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of
the country where protection is claimed [emphasis supplied]).
C.
The Settlement is not “
Legislating”
Some have expressed concern that the Settlement constitutes “
judicial legislating”
or that approval of this particular class action settlement is not otherwise properly within
the province of the federal courts. That is not the case. Whatever one’view of judicial
s
activism, a class action settlement negotiated by parties to a lawsuit and approved by a
federal court only binds members of the class who have chosen not to opt out. It does not
bind – supplant the role of –
or
Congress.
Moreover, settlements of litigation do not establish rights or obligations of general
applicability, which is, by contrast, in the very nature of statutes. In this case, the
Settlement only pertains to the rights of class members vis-à-vis Google, which is
obtaining a non-exclusive license from rightsholders who have chosen to remain in the
Settlement.
Furthermore, the class action device is widely used in all manner of state and
federal common law and statutory claims. It has also been used in the context of federal
copyright claims. Such actions have been settled, and those settlements are subject to the
29
A-1411
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-8
Filed 08/26/13 Page 31 of 31
requirements of the Federal Rules and to judicial decisions interpreting such Rules.
Congress has not chosen to exempt copyright infringement actions from the Federal
Rules that authorize the use of the class action device in appropriate circumstances.
Parties utilizing a congressionally created procedural device, and courts approving class
action settlements, are, therefore, fully adhering to federal law.
Finally, nothing in the Settlement prevents Congress from legislating in the future
as broadly as it wishes. Congress could, for example, pass orphan works legislation, to
enable users to make use of a work after a due diligence effort to identify and locate the
copyright owner.
30
A-1412
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-9
Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT 9
A-1413
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-9
Filed 08/26/13 Page 2 of 7
page 1
1
UNITED STATES DISTRI CT COURT
2
SO:JTHERN DISTRICT Of NEW YOR3:
3
4
THE .ll..UTHORS GUI LD,
al . ,
I NC ., e t
) Civil P.ction No .
I 05 - CV- 8136 (DC I
5
Plaintiffs ,
vs .
6
)
I
)
I
7
I
GOOGLE , INC. ,
8
Defendant .
I
)
----------------------------1
9
Thursday , .ll"pr i
9 : 08 a . m.
1~+ ,
2012
10
11
]2
13
14
]5
Confidentia l Videotaped Deposition
AIKEN , held at the offices of
Milberg , 1 LP, One Penn Plaza , New York ,
Ne\oJ York , pursuant to Rul e 30 (b ) ( 6)
No t ice , before Otis Davis , a Nota.ry
of
PAU~
Publi_ oC Lhe SLrlLe oC New YC k .
c
ll
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
( ~442577 1
A-1414
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-9
Filed 08/26/13 Page 3 of 7
page 115
1
Q.
So if I was doing genealogical research
2
on my great - grandmother , she might ce mentioned in a
3
book , but not ide:1tified ao
4
catalog ent:::-y pertaining to ,,:hat book ; is that right?
J.
topic in the cord
5
p.. .
That ' 3 correct .
6
Q.
SO lr I Wf:;r-f?, cOllcluc Li ny slJ(:L ljp.llealoyical
7
research on my great - grandmo :her and
8
every book in which her name had been mentioned , in
9
the absence of Google Books , would there be a way for
10
me to do that other than by reading every book in the
11
library that might possibly include a re=erence to
12
her?
13
MR . BONI :
14
You Cdll
15
.~ .
Yes .
Objec: to
wa~ted
:0 find
t~rm .
an~""er .
Except for Google ' s bold act of
16
infring ~ ng
17
able La f i nd your- <,)L"
eaL -YL-aIldmo t her ' s uame ill au
18
out - ot - pr i nt in - copyright
19
20
O.
millions of copyrights , you would not be
Do
yO"';
boo ~<.
think Google ' s Library Project has
helped the sale of books?
21
.1\ .
No .
22
Q.
Would you expect Google ' s Library Project
23
to have had any positive or negative effect on book
24
sales?
25
.n. .
I would expect i: to have a nega:ive
A-1415
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-9
Filed 08/26/13 Page 4 of 7
page 136
1
in your testimony.
Are you a·..·are of any instance in Hhich
2
3
Google ' s securi t y hew b e en compromised VI'ith respect
4
to LIe digital copies of boo :lhat may be
Do yo u lhlnk i l ' :::;
lIlllLe
likely lhan nol
15
that SearcJ1. Inside the Book on average r.as a net
16
positive effect on sales?
17
l\ .
Ye::; .
18
Q.
Would you agree -:hat Search Inside t he
19
Book has crea t ed a brows able bookstore?
MR . HONI :
20
21
l\ .
22
23
24
25
No .
f\iIR .
p..• •
Objec-: to form .
BOtH :
You can ansvler .
No .
NS . DURIE :
Let me ha -Je marked
as the
next exhibit a multipaqe document , the first page of
A-1419
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-10
Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT 10
A-1420
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-10
Filed 08/26/13 Page 2 of 6
UNJTED STA'l'P,S DISTR TC'T' r:OtJRT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YDRK
2 THE .z\UTIIORS GUILD , I NC " et al. ,
------------------------------------------X
3
PlJI..:NTIFFS ,
4
- against. -
5
Case No :
05CVS136 (DC)
6
7
8
GOOGLE INC "
DEFENDANT .
------------------------------------------X
9
10
CATE : January 4 , 2012
'
11
TIME : 1 : 05 P . M.
12
13
14
DEPOSITION o[ a Plainti[f, BETTY I..:I::"'ES ,
t aken
IS
by the Defendants , pursuant to a Not:"ce and to the
16
Federal Rules of Civ:"l Procedure , he_d at the oft ices at
17
r-IILBERG , LLP , One pennsylvania Plaza , New York , New York
18
10119 , befor-e Deborah Garz:l.niti , a Notary Public of the
19
S t ate of New York .
20
2]
22
23
24
25
DIAMOND FEPORTIKG , INC . - illfo@diamolld!efJOLLiIly . colll
718 . 624 . 7200
1
A-1421
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-10
Filed 08/26/13 Page 3 of 6
D. MILES
own" thp. r.i ghts r.o, t.h" 7. t" my r i gh 7. ann th,..lt
r"
the
~ ight
2 of every author , so .
3
Q.
4
.r:. . Amcng others .
5
Q.
Do you consider t ha t an economic right?
Have you lost any sales of books as a
6 result of Google Books?
7
.n. .
I have no "'ay of kno'tling that .
8
'::1 .
Do you think that Google scanning and a
9 snippe 'C. display of your out of print books has resulted
10
in lost. sales?
MR . BCNI :
11
12
Objection to form .
You can
answer .
13
l\ .
I don. r t know .
14
Q.
Do YOIl Lhink Lhal. Google scannIng and a
IS snippe'C. display of your out of print books has resulted
16
in economic harm to you in the form of lost sales?
17
A.
No .
18
'J .
Have you dor.e anything to try to find out
19
whether there ha'''e been any lost sales?
20
.,.
No .
21
Q.
Are any of your books currently in print?
22
A.
I t is a li ttle unclear .
23
out of print.
24
versions Clnd not in ours , an.d publishers he l d on to the
25
caLego!.'}' In p cinl. as long iiS LLey po:-;sibly
Most of them a::e
Some of :.heJ'l are in print 1n certain
Cdll .
DIAMOND FEPORTIKG , INC . - info@diamond!ef,JorLlny . com
718 . 624 . 7200
14
A-1422
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-10
Filed 08/26/13 Page 4 of 6
2'
D. MILes
m.1rkr.ci ,;!'; Miles Z,xh.ihit :: for irlr.n-.if;(;,')t. ir:n
.,~
of this
2 date by the Reporter . )
CJ .
3
I have put in front of
4 marked as Miles Exhibit 2 .
5
~·ou
wha.t has been
Do you recognize what is
dep leted here'?
6
A.
Yes .
7
Q.
What is it?
8
.,.
A page from the book cal':'ed The Real Me .
9
10
11
I don ' t
know if i t is a full
Q.
hmazon logo .
page
or not , actually not .
In the up?e= right corner do you see the
It is a little dim.
12
A.
It i3 too dim .
13
Q.
Do you see in the upper right corner you
14
see Look Inside?
Tl:e upper le[\. corner .
Sorry .
I"
.
,.
Yes .
16
Q.
Have you used the Look Inside teature ?
17
A.
No .
10
Q.
Do you knovl tha:. this mt:.ch of a page of
19
The Real "e was available to be viewed on Amazon . com?
20
l\ .
No .
21
Q.
Do you object to Amazon . com of making
22
23
this much of a page available on Amaz::m . corr,?
A.
As I just said , the usua:" small bit is
24 what I expect and would prefer to see .
25
Q.
Do you t.hink Lhdl. the d Vdlldbill ty c[ as
DIAMOND REPORTI KG ,
INC . - ill[u(Juid!llUlldn~fJOL· li H Y . com
718 . 624 . 7200
24
A-1423
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-10
Filed 08/26/13 Page 5 of 6
25
D. MILES
nmr.h text ,'s YOIl see h(';r0. :>n Exhi.hit 2 could h;n:m sales
2
of The Real He?
3
.~ .
Oh , probably not.
4
Q.
Why not?
5
A.
we l l , i t gi'les a fla'vcr o f :.he style .
6
Q.
Any other reason '?
7
.~ . No .
,~ .
Did
S
you autr.orize ll.mazor. to display L'lis
9 much of a page of Tr.e Real Me on Amazon . corr.?
10
A.
No .
11
Q.
Do you knOVl if anyone did?
12
.n. , No , I don ' t .
13
Q.
Do you knOvl if the The }'I.uthers Guild?
14
,t>"
1 doubt it. .
IS
MR . BCN I:
16
want .
Don ' t guess , Betty .
Don ' t dC-UDt or not doubt .
17
A.
18
M BeN l :
R.
19
I
know .
do~ ' t
He doesn ' t wan t your guesses .
lIe
wants to know \to'hat you lm O"I .
20
21
Say what you
Q.
Looking again at Exhibit 2 , you said that
this particular
e ~: cerpt
22 objected to because
:.t
,,'asn ' t something that you
gave a flavor C)f the book .
Is
23 there any
24
25
A.
I didn ' t say -- first I said I thought I
didn ' L ubject to it ,
then second you said why Ivould
DIAMOND FEPORT I KG , INC . - info@diamond!ef,JoLL.i.ny . com
718 . 624 . 720D
25
A-1424
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-10
Filed 08/26/13 Page 6 of 6
40
D. MILES
Q.
2
How?
MR . BCNl :
The search for 1'1.nnic is t he
3 question.
4
.r:. .
5
MR . BCN 1 :
6
Yes .
Make sure you understand the
question .
.n. .
7
I dO:1 ' t understand .
That ' s the key vlord
8 for the search .
9
O.
Yes .
10
A.
No , I don ' t know .
11
Q.
Focusing
12
yo~r
attention 0:1
~ he
three
snip;::et.s that are sr.ONn on the first page cf Exh i bit 8 ,
13 cou l d a person read these snippets and then :-lot need to
14
buy The Trouble WiLL ThirL=€n?
IS
MR . BCNI :
16
A.
That ' s true .
18
(;:) ,
Sorry .
19
A.
We did go ttrough that earlier .
20
Q.
Is it r ight that r eading these three
17
Asked and answel:ed .
Yes, we did go through
that .
What was the answer?
21
snippet.s is not a st:bstitute of need :' ng to buy a copy of
22
The Trouble With Thirteen?
23
,z" ,
Yes ,
24
Cl .
Turning to the fourth page of Exhibit 8 ,
25
this
J.S
d.
simildr weD IJage , but. you will :-;ee t.hal. t.lie
DIAMOND FEPORTIKG , INC . - illfo@diamolld!ef,JOLLiIly . colll
718 . 624 . 720D
49
A-1425
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-11
Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT 11
A-1426
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 1075-11
Filed 08/26/13 Page 2 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
The Authors Guild, et al.
Plaintiffs,
Master File No. NO. 05 CV 8136·DC
v.
Google Inc.,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIF.S TO
PLAINTIFFS THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., JIM BOUTON, JOSEPH GOULDEN A'!D
BETTY MILES
Pun;wmt io Rult::s 26 and 33 oflhe Federal Rult:s of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby
respond and object to Defendant Coogle Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs The
Authors Guild, Inc., Jim Bouton, Joseph Goulden and Betty Miles.
General Objections
I.
Plaintiffs generally object to the Interrogatories and their instructions to the extent
that they seek infOIm
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?