Love v. Wiley Book Writers: A Publishing Scam Gets A Rare Comeuppance - Writer Beware (R)

I'm seeing better now.

Panzer's first stop today was at the Writer Beware (R) site. There he found a post about a ring of scammers who finally got caught.

 

Victoria Strauss' post follows how an author who got scammed out of thousands of dollars was able to get the scammers tracked down, go toi court, and win his case.

 

Panzer says, "Look at the list of company names those guys used." 

 

 Note: This is a very, very long post. Bring a cup of tea and sandwich to snack on.

 

To read the post tootle over to Writer Beware (R) 

Authors Guild, Co-Plaintiffs Seek Summary Judgment in OpenAI Case - Publishers Daily

This one is confusing to me.

Panzer's first stop in the Catosphere today was at the Publishers Daily site. There our traveling kitty pilot found a post about the court case against OpenAI and Microsoft

 

The court case involves copyright infringement because the plaintiffs say OpenAI fed books into it LLMs. OpenAI says it was "Fair Use". 

 

Panzer says, "Another copyright case." 

 

 Note: Ths is a very long post. You should bring your lunch to snack on.

 

To read the post tootle over to OpenAI Case 

Guest Blog Post: Can a Flawed US Legal System Discourage Fraud? A Look at PageTurner Scam Prosecution - Writer Beware (R)

It's discouraging for me to read.

Here's a post Panzer found on the Writer Beware (R) site about how fraud cases are prosecuted in the US.

 

In his post Trent Bertrand does a deep dive into how the process works. He uses the PageTurner scam as an example of the legal system's mechanics.

 

Panzer says, "Hmm ... It almost looks like somebody took the fox into the chicken coop."

 

Note: This is a long post. Bring a glass of iced tea and a bowl of ice cream. (Can you tell it's really hot here?)

  

To read the post tootle over to Writer Beware 

Anthropic Settlement Appears to Cruise Through It's Final Fairness Hearing - Publishing Perspectives

Always pay for your copyright.

Panzer found a post about the Anthropic author settlement case on the Publishing Perspective site.

 

According to the post, the court Fairness Hearing was held on May 14. While there were some objections to the settlement, it's speculated it will be approved soon and the money dispersed.

 

Panzer says, "It's been a long case."

 

Note:This is a long-medium length post. Bring a cup of tea and a muffin to snack on.

 

To read the post tootle over to Anthropic Settlement 

Diamond Bankruptcy Hearing Heats Up - Publishers Weekly

It's an interesting court case.

Today, Panzer made a stop at the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about Diamond Comic Distributor's bankruptcy.

According to Jim Milliot's post, the publishers and vendors are still fighting Diamond's plans to sell their products without their permission. The post explains the bankruptcy case, the company's sale and the court decisions so far. The post contains links to other information about the bankruptcy.

 

Panzer says, "This little kitty would never agree to consignment sales without a lot of company investigation first."

 

Note: This is a short-medium length post. A small glass of lemonade will be enough for the post; but, if you plan to follow the links in the post, you'll need to decide what else to bring to snack on.

 

To read the post tootl3e over to Diamond Bankruptcy 

SF-Based Internet Archive Is Now a Federal Deposity Library. What Does That Mean? - Close All Tabs

There's nothing to say about it.

Panzer  found this post on KQED's Close All Tabs site. The post is about the Internet Archive (IA). If you've been reading the posts here for a while, you know Panzer has been following the copyright infringement court case against the Internet Archive (IA) since it began. IA was claiming they were a library and then making scanned copies of books and letting people "borrow" the copies. This was done without authors or publishers permission. The court case has gone on for years. The IA lost the court case against them and last year decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

 Morgan Sung's post reports a California senator has designated the Internet Archive to be a Federal Depository Library.

 

Panzer says, "You'll need to read the post."

 

Note: This is a long, long post. You'll need to decide what to bring to snack on while you read.  

 

To read the post tootle over to Internet Archive 

To read Panzer's previous post tootle over to Internet Archive Copyright Case Ends 

Washington State Supreme Court Rules on Amazon Pandemic Price-Gouging - Publishers Weekly

 

This post is about as long as the news brief.

Panzer found a short news brief at the Publishers Weekly site.

As the headline says the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled the class action lawsuit against Amazon for price-gouging meets the criteria under the state's Consumer Protection Act.

Panzer says, "There's a link to a much longer announcement about the court's decision and the lawsuit included in the news brief post."

Note: The news brief is short and you won't need anything to snack on while you read it. If you plan to follow the included link to the longer information post, you'll need to decide what to bring to snack on while you read there.

To read the post tootle over to Amazon

Internet Archive Hit With DDoS Attack - PC Mag

I've got another stop to make.

Today, Panzer made a quick stop at the PCMag site. With a little digging in the posts he found one about the Internet Archive.

 

 According to Kate Irwin's post, over the Memorial Day holiday weekend the Internet Archive was shut down with a Distributed Denial of Service attack.

Panzer says, "The end of the post covers the Internet Archive's court loss for copyright infringement, too."

Note: This is a short post. You won't need a snack while you read, just a cup of tea will do.

 

To read the post tootle over to Internet Archive DD0S Attack

Internet Archive Files Final Appeal Brief in Book Scanning Case - Publishers Weekly

How many times can you say the same thing the same way?

Panzer's first stop in the Catosphere today was at the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about the ongoing copyright infringement case against the Internet Archive (IA).

 

According to Andrew Albanese's post, the Internet Archive (IA) filed their final reply in the copyright infringement case they lost. Basically, their brief says the judge made the wrong decision in the case and needs to change it. It reads like the same argument IA has made in the case all along.

  

Panzer says, "To this little kitty it looks like it says it's okay for them to scan your work without your permission and without payment."

Note: This is a long-medium length post. You'll need to decide what you want to bring to snack on while you read.

 

To read the post tootle over to Internet Archive

Amicus Briefs Filed in Internet Archive Copyright Case - Publishers Weekly

IA scanned books without permission. That's it.

Panzer found an interesting post at the Publishers Weekly site about the Internet Archive (IA) case in which the IA was found to have committed copyright infringement.

 

According to Andrew Albanese's post, the Internet Archive (IA) has filed it's appeal brief of the judge's decision, the publishers have filed their response brief, and groups which either support IA or the publishers have filed their briefs. The different group briefs for and against the decision are listed and quoted in the post. Links are included in the post.

 

Panzer says, "You'll need to read all those group briefs quotes. This is one of those cases that goes on forever."

 

Note: This is a long post. You'll need to decide what to bring to snack on while you read.

 

To read the post tootle over to Internet Archive Copyright Case

Court Orders Amazon E-book Monopoly Lawsuit to Proceed - Publishers Weekly

This looks like it's going to go on for a long time.

Today, Panzer's trip into the Catosphere took him to the Publishers Weekly site. There our intrepid kitty traveler found a post about Amazon's ebook contracts with publishers.

 

According to Andrew Albanese's post, Judge Gregory Woods is allowing the class action lawsuit that accuses Amazon of monopolizing ebook sales and thereby setting ebook prices to continue. This lawsuit originally started in 2021. The post includes links to information from the original lawsuit and subsequent filings.

 

Panzer says, "This lawsuit is separate from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit."

 

Note: This is a medium length post. Bring a cup of tea and two chocolate chip cookies (biscuits) for today's reading selection.

 

To read the post tootle over to Amazon E-book Monopoly Lawsuit

In a Swift Decision, Judge Eviscerates Internet Archive's ... - Publishers Weekly

Today, Panzer made a trip to the Publishers Weekly site. With no digging at all in the posts he found one about the Internet Archive court case.

 

According to Andrew Albanese, the copyright infringement lawsuit against the Internet Archive has been decided. In a summary judgement Judge John G. Koell found the Internet Archive had committed copyright infringement. The Internet Archive has already said it will appeal the decision. The post explains the judge's reasoning for his decision. Also included in the post are links to other information about the court case.

 

Will it go to the Supreme Court?.

Panzer says, "So, it's not really over yet because the Internet Archive will keep appealing."

 

Note:This is a very, very long post. Bring a thermos of cocoa, two muffins, two chocolate brownies, and two chocolate chip cookies (biscuits) for today's reading selection.

 

To read the post tootle over to Internet Archive

At Hearing, Judge Appears Skeptical of Internet Archive's ... - Publishers Weekly

Today's trip into the Catosphere took Panzer to the Publishers Weekly site. There with hardly any digging at all he found a post about the copyright infringement court case against the Internet Archive.

 

 

Whoever loses will appeal.

According to the post by Andrew Albanese, through the questions asked by the judge overseeing the case, he doesn't accept the Internet Archive's (IA) defense as credible. IA's attorneys are basing the defense on the fact IA calls itself a library and as such it can scan and make digital copies of any book it "owns." IA then allows readers worldwide to "borrow" and read those copies. Since neither authors nor publishers are paid for the books and they're copied without permission, the publishers and authors' court case accuses IA of copyright infringement. There's a link at the end of the post to previous posts about the court case.

 

Panzer says, "How can you take people's  stuff and use it without their permission and then say that's okay?"

Note: This is a long post. Bring a cup of cocoa and a muffin for today's reading selection.

 

To read the post tootle over to Internet Archive Court Case

Oral Argument Set in Internet Archive Copyright Case - Publishers Weekly

Today Panzer is feeling better, so our recovered kitty pilot made a trip to the Publishers Weekly site. With hardly any digging at all in the posts, he found one about the copyright infringement court case against the Internet Archive.

 

According to the post by Andrew Albanese, the attorneys for the publishers and the attorneys for the Internet Archive (IA) will present their oral arguments to the judge beginning on March 20. The case involves the IA scanning and "lending" books without the knowledge of or payments to publishers and authors. The IA says they are a library and therefore can do it. The publishers say the IA isn't a library, it's a piracy site. Now, the judge gets to decide.

 

It still hurts where I got that shot.

Panzer says, "Hmm ... Can anybody just get up one morning and say, 'I'm a library'?"

 

Note: This is a medium length post. Bring a cup of tea and a muffin for your reading selection.

 

To read the post tootle over to Internet Archive Copyright Infringement Case

What the ruling against the PRH-S&S merger means for the publishing business - The Idea Logical Company

Today's trip into the Catosphere took Panzer to The Idea Logical Company site. There with a little digging in the posts he found one about the Penguin Random House and Simon and Schuster merger failure. Panzer told you about the court case as it unfolded.

It's an interesting read.

Mike Shatzkin gives an in-depth analysis of what he believes will be the outcome of the court decision to stop the Penguin Random House (PRH) merger with Simon and Schuster (S&S). He presents his reasoning for why there will continue to be a big five in the publishing industry.

Panzer says, "Everything he presents makes sense as long as the court decision is upheld on appeal. (If there is an appeal.)"

Note: This is a very long post. Bring a large cup of warm tea and two muffins for today's reading selection.

To read the post tootle over to PRH-S&S merger ruling

To read the previous post about the court decision tootle over to PRH-S&S written ruling

In Written Opinion, Judge Florence Pan Delivers Knockout Blow to PRH, S&S Merger - Publishers Weekly

Today, over at the Publishers Weekly site Panzer found a post about the judge's decision against the merger of Penguin Random House (PRH) and Simon and Schuster (S&S).

After all that reading it's nap time.

The post by Andrew Albanese lists the major points from Judge Pan's written opinion which was released yesterday. The judge listed the arguments of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case which she used in making her decision against the merger. She also listed the arguments of the publisher's lawyers which she found not credible.

Panzer says, "Judge Pan put a lot of effort into her decision."

Note: This is a humongous post. Bring your lunch to eat during your reading.

To read the post tootle over to Written Opinion

Florence Pan, Judge in DOJ vs. PRH Case, Confirmed to U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. - Publishers Weekly

Today Panzer made a quick trip to the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about the judge in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case against Penguin Random House (PRH). The case to stop PRH from acquiring Simon and Schuster (S&S).

 

Interesting.

According to the post by John Maher, Judge Florence Pan has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C.

 

Panzer says, "Hmm ... This little kitty thinks it's interesting to watch how the court system works."

 

Note: This is a long-short length post. Bring a glass of lemonade for today's reading selection.

 

To read the post tootle over to Judge Florence Pan

In Post-Trial Briefs, PRH Attorneys Say DOJ Failed to Prove Its Case Against S&S Merger - Publishers Weekly

Today's trip into the Catosphere took Panzer to the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case against the Penguin Random House (PRH) and Simon and Schuster (S&S) merger.

I want to see the DOJ's brief too.

According to Andrew Albanese's post, Penguin Random House submitted its post-trial brief to explain why the Department of Justice has not proved its case to stop the merger with Simon and Schuster. The PRH brief says the DOJ only concentrated its arguments on lower advances for authors who have previously received advances of $250,000 or more. PRH says these authors won't suffer any monetary loses because of the merger. PRH also says the DOJ didn't address any harm to consumers caused by the merger. The post doesn't address the DOJ's post-trial brief, but they haven't seen it yet. The post contains several links for more information about the case.

Panzer says, "This little kitty wants to know, when is a publisher too big?"

Note: This is a long medium length post. Bring a glass of iced tea and a bowl of ice cream for today's reading selection. If you plan to follow the links in the post, you'll have to decide what to bring to eat and drink.

To read the post tootle over to DOJ vs. PRH

DOJ v. PRH: "Ending Where We Started" - Publishers Weekly

Today's trip into the Catopshere took Panzer to the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about last Friday's closing arguments in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case to stop Penguin Random House's (PRH) acquisition of Simon and Schuster (S&S).

 

Who will win? Authors or Publishers?

According to Ed Nawotka's post, there were three closing arguments in the case on Friday. The DOJ presented their argument first. DOJ's basic argument was, if the merger goes through, PRH will have 49 percent of the book market.There will be less competition for books and authors will make less money. PRH's closing argument was second. PRH's basic argument was it doesn't matter how big their market share is. S&S's closing argument was third. S&S's basic argument was PRH offered the most money for the company.

 

Panzer says, "It will be interesting to see what the final decision is."

 

Note: This is a very, very long post. Bring a thermos of iced tea, three chocolate chip cookies (biscuits) and a brownie.

 

To read the post tootle over to DoJ v. PRH Closing Arguments

DOJ v. PRH: 'Agents Don't Have Guns, They Have Tactics' - Publishers Weekly

Here's Panzer's update from the Publishers Weekly site on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case against Penguin Random House's (PRH) acquisition of Simon and Schuster (S&S).

Ed Nawotka's post covers Edward Snyder's testimony that his research supports his opinion that authors whose book advances are $250,000 or more won't be impacted by the acquisition. This post's title comes from his answer to a question about book agents. The post also says today (Thursday) is expected to be the last day of testimony for PRH's defense of the acquisition.

The office is all mine tonight.

Panzer says, "We're doing posting early today because Mom and What's His Name have plans for tonight."

Note: This is a long post. Bring a milkshake for today's reading selection.

To read the post tootle over to Agents