We've probably all but forgotten about the (revised) Google Book Settlement, but this is absolutely massive. The New York judge has denied the settlement, and has told the parties to go back to the drawing board and redraft as an "opt in". Even then there is no indication it would get passed. I've had a quick reading, and it seems he has basically sided with those who thought Google should never have gained an advantage from what was a legally precarious activity in the first instance.

Some are claiming this as a victory: but though the Settlement had its flaws its major achievement was to bring Google's scanning under some kind of legal framework, and establish a way for all parties to move forward. The ruling breaks that bond, and throws everything in the air once more.

Here is the news:

Judge throws out revised Google Book Settlement

A New York judge has ruled that the revised Google Book Settlement is not "fair, adequate, and reasonable" and has denied final approval. Judge Denny Chin has instead told the parties to redraft the settlement as an "opt-in" rather than an "opt-out" settlement.

In court documents filed today (22nd March), Chin said: "While the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many, the ASA would simply go too far. It would permit this class action--which was brought against defendant Google Inc. to challenge its scanning of books and display of 'snippets' for on-line searching--to implement a forward-looking business arrangement that would grant Google significant rights to exploit entire books, without permission of the copyright owners. Indeed, the ASA (Amended Settle Agreement) would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case."

Chin added: "In the end, I conclude that the ASA is not fair, adequate, and reasonable. As the United States and other objectors have noted, may of the concerns raised in the objections would be ameliorated if the ASA were converted from an "opt-out" settlement to an "opt-in" settlement. I urge the parties to consider revising the ASA accordingly. The motion for final approval of the ASA is denied, without prejudice to renewal in the event the parties negotiate a revised settlement agreement.