


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amazon.com Inc joined the opposition to Google Inc's plan to digitize millions of books, saying that the proposed deal would fundamentally change copyright law and violate antitrust law.
Amazon, which scans books after getting permission from the copyright holder, said that the court should reject a settlement between Google and the Authors Guild because the deal would change copyright law by allowing Google to digitize books even if the copyright holder cannot be found, often called "orphan works."
"The proposed settlement usurps the role of Congress in legislating solutions to the complex issues raised by the interplay between new technologies and the nation's copyright laws," Amazon said in its filing, which was dated Tuesday.
Amazon also argued that the book registry envisioned in the settlement could constitute price-fixing.
The proposed settlement would resolve a lawsuit filed in 2005 by the Authors Guild. The Guild and a group of publishers had alleged copyright infringement.
Google has agreed to pay $125 million to create a Book Rights Registry, where authors and publishers could register works and receive compensation.
Under the settlement, authors have until the end of this week to tell Google that they do not want their books digitized. A hearing on approval of the settlement is set for October 7 in Manhattan federal court.
Google rejected the criticisms.
"The Google Books settlement is injecting more competition into the digital books space, so it's understandable why our competitors might fight hard to prevent more competition," said Google spokesman Gabriel Stricker in an email.
"It's important to note that this agreement is non-exclusive and if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S."
Google's rivals, Microsoft Corp and Yahoo Inc, also oppose the plan, while the American Library Association and Association of Research Libraries have asked for court oversight. They fear that if the service becomes a necessity for libraries, they would face monopoly pricing.
The U.S. Justice Department is investigating the deal while European Union antitrust enforcers, prompted by Germany, have said they would study it.
The case is Authors Guild et al v Google Inc 05-08136 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)
(Reporting by Diane Bartz; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Richard Chang)
Source: Reuters
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Who says you can't buy friends? An Australian online marketing company is selling friends and fans to Facebook members after offering a similar service to Twitter users.
Advertising, marketing and promoting company uSocial (usocial.net) said it was targeting social networking sites because of their huge advertising potential.
"Facebook is an extremely effective marketing tool," Leon Hill, uSocial CEO, said in a statement.
"The simple fact is that with a large following on Facebook, you have an instant and targeted group of people you can contact and promote whatever it is you want to promote," he added.
"The only problem is that it can be extremely difficult to achieve such a following, which is where we come in.
The company offers packages for Facebook, the world's number one social networking site, that start at 1,000 friends up to 10,000 friends at costs ranging from $177 to $1,167.
"All we do is send them a welcome message or friend request from the client. If they decide to go ahead and add that person as a friend or a fan then they will; if not, then they won't," Hill told Australian media.
Facebook is now the world's fourth-most visited website.
The company, which counts venture capitalist Peter Thiel, Accel Partners, Microsoft Corp and Russian Internet investment firm Digital Sky Technologies among its investors, has more than 250 million registered users.
But uSocial's packages are not without controversy.
According to some Australian websites, Twitter tried to shut uSocial down, accusing it of spamming members, while the Los Angeles Times reported that Digg.com, a website where people vote for their top news stories or websites, has also tried to shut down uSocial because it sells votes.
Source: Reuters