The Book Search settlement, announced in October, followed a three-year battle over Google’s right to display copyrighted books on its Web site. The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers claimed Google was violating copyrights by doing so. Google eventually agreed to pay $125 million to ensure authors and publishers could register to receive payments anytime their books were viewed within the service.

The deal is proving to be quite divisive, and now, with the Justice Department’s reported antitrust investigation, things could get even more dicey. Here’s a look at five key arguments from both sides of the debate.

Google’s Book Search Deal

Unlike the case of Napster, The Pirate bay doesn’t actually host the copyrighted files, it simply allows users to posts links to copyrighted files on third party servers. That’s why the they were charged of “assisting making available copyrighted material” instead of “assisting copyright infringement”

Could this be the end of torrent file sharing? And how about other torrent search engines, could they be next, If simply posting links to copyrighted materials can be charged of “assisting making available copyrighted materials”, surely there are many sites that fits this profile. One problem is, most of the links to copyrighted materials are posted by users and not necessarily the owners of site.

How about Online file sharing sites like rapidshare, megaupload, easyshare and others, Some of it’s users upload copyrighted materials, Even though they deleted files if found to be in violation of their terms of service. Problem is how to determine if the files are copyright, as most of the uploaded files are archived and renamed. Are the owners of the site also liable?

And One Big question, since Google, Yahoo, MSN Live.com also indexes copyrighted materials, are they also liable?

The Pirate Bay Verdict – Netcrunch

Residents there are launching legal proceedings against SP AusNet over a fallen power line which is believed to have started the blaze.

SP AusNet is 51 per cent-owned by Singapore Power and listed on both the Australian and Singapore stock exchanges.

The company said yesterday that it would cooperate fully with any investigation into the cause of the fires.

‘We stand ready to assist the relevant authorities with their enquiries if it is necessary for us to do so now and in the coming months,’ said spokesman Louisa Graham.

Residents to sue Spore firm

Christina Silva filed suit last April 10 in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging negligence, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, false advertising and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Silva, a Latina, also alleged a violation of her civil rights arising from the pageant’s alleged decision that the contestant who should win the crown should not be of her race and ethnicity.

Silva’s suit listed damages of at least $500,000 and also named as defendants Miss California USA, state pageant director Keith Lewis, K2 Productions, which produced the pageant, and Miss Universe LLP.

Raquel Beezley of Barstow eventually donned the tiara and sash that originally was awarded to the 24-year-old Silva, Miss Los Angeles USA, during the Nov. 25, 2007, pageant at the Orpheum Theater.

According to court records, Wilfredo Trivino-Perez, Silva’s lawyer, on Jan. 14 requested dismissal of his client’s case against Miss California USA and Miss Universe LLP only. He filed additional papers on Monday asking that the action apply to all defendants.

The papers do not state if the 25-year-old Silva is no longer pursuing the lawsuit because there was a settlement, or if she is doing so for other reasons. Attorneys in the case were not immediately available for comment.

Shortly after the mix-up, pageant officials denied allegations of impropriety or special treatment toward other contestants, insisting that a volunteer accountant erred while tabulating the votes during the pageant. Lewis said then the mistake was the result of misprinted ballots, and that the person responsible for the error quit.

Silva was allowed to keep the crown she received, her sash and a $4,500 Miss California USA necklace. The pageant also returned her $1,500 entry fee and said she could compete the next year for free.

Since the 2007 pageant, Silva has modeled and traveled to Africa, her lawyer, Trivino-Perez said previously.

After Beezley’s reign ended, Pad Squad Carrie became her successor as Miss California 2009.

Ugly Lawsuit Doesn’t Fit Beauty Queen

Incoming search terms:

• christina silva
• beauty queen sash
• ugly beauty queen
• cristina silva

Harry Nicolaides, 41, had a six-year sentence cut in half after he plead guilty to defaming the king and his son, the Criminal Court said in a statement today. The former university lecturer who first started working in Thailand in 2003 has been in jail since his arrest in September, the court said.

“We can’t talk of any freedom of speech in Thailand or any democracy when people are imprisoned for what they write or what they say,” said Giles Ungpakorn, a political science lecturer at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University who faces lese majeste charges for his 2006 book, “A Coup For The Rich.” He has started a campaign to abolish the law against insulting the royal family, punishable by as many as 15 years in jail.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said last week he would respect “the rights of ordinary people and freedom of expression” while attempting to stop criticism of the monarchy. Since he took power last month after backing a royalist protest group, Abhisit’s government has blocked more than 2,300 Web sites it says insult the king.

The passage in Nicolaides’ book that referred to the royal family took up three lines of a 300-page book, according to Reporters Without Borders, an advocacy group that called for his release. Only 50 copies of his novel were printed, it said.

During his six decades on the throne, 81-year-old Bhumibol has achieved near god-like status. The public relations campaign to deify him extends from history books to nightly newscasts.

sari2x

The consumer group, called the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said its litigation department is serving as co-counsel in the suit, which was filed Wednesday in California.

“The idea that you can improve your immunity by drinking one of these VitaminWater drinks is nonsense,” David Schardt, a senior nutritionist for the nonprofit group, said during a conference call with reporters.

The group said Coke markets VitaminWater as a healthful alternative to soda and said the company makes a wide range of assertions, including claims that the drinks variously reduce the risk of chronic disease and support immune function. The nonprofit’s nutritionists say the levels of sugar in the drinks promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems. The other law firms involved in the case are Reese Richman LLP and Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC.

A Coke spokeswoman, Diana Garza Ciarlante, in an email called the suit ” ridiculous.”

“Glaceau VitaminWater is clearly and properly labeled and shows the amount of vitamins and calories in the product,” she said. “This is not about protecting the public interest. This is about increasing the readership of CSPI’s increasingly irrelevant newsletter.”

Coke described VitaminWater as a “great complement to our often less-than- perfect diet” and a good way to “get more of the vitamins and hydration we all need each day.”

Coke bought company that makes VitaminWater for $4.1 billion in 2007, making it the costliest takeover in the company’s history. Since its acquisition, the Atlanta giant has pushed to increase distribution within the U.S. and abroad, and the drink has become a formidable competitor to many other drinks such as rival PepsiCo Inc.’s (PEP) Gatorade.

This also isn’t the first time that the soft-drink industry is facing a pushback on its claims.

Most recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called Coca-Cola’s Diet Coke Plus product “misbranded” and said the product makes a nutrient claim but doesn’t meet the criteria to do so.

Shares of Coca-Cola were trading recently at $42.55, off 7 cents.

Consumer Group Files Suit Vs Coke On VitaminWater

The school argued in its appeal that the Constitution allowed a strip search of a student suspected of having prescription-strength ibuprofen in violation of its policy that prohibited medications on campus without permission.

School officials in Safford, Arizona, ordered the search in 2003 of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade. Following an assistant principal’s orders, a school nurse had Redding remove her clothes, including her bra, and shake her underwear to see if she was hiding ibuprofen, a common painkiller.

School officials did not find ibuprofen, which is found in over-the-counter medications like Advil and Motrin. Higher doses require a prescription.

The strip search had been prompted by an unverified tip from another girl who had Redding’s school planner and some ibuprofen pills. She claimed Redding had given her the pills.

Redding denied it and an initial search of her backpack and pockets did not turn up any ibuprofen. The assistant principal then ordered the strip search to be done in front of the nurse and his administrative assistant, both women.

Redding said she was embarrassed, scared and about to cry. She said she felt humiliated and violated by the strip search.

A federal appeals court ruled the school and school officials violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment right that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It said alleged ibuprofen possession was “an infraction that poses an imminent danger to no one.” Instead of forcing Redding to disrobe, school officials could have kept her in the principal’s office until a parent arrived or could have sent her home.

The appeals court also ruled the assistant principal may be held liable for damages for the search.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the school argued that the ruling has alarmed administrators and teachers around the country.

The decision “places student safety and school order at risk by impairing the ability of school officials to effectively carry out their custodial responsibility,” it said.

Redding’s lawyers opposed the appeal.

“A school official simply cannot order a strip search any time a frightened student points an accusatory finger at another student,” they said.

If the school wins, strip searches could become as prevalent as “the common practice of students tattling on each other,” her lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union said.

The case could he heard by the justices in April, with a decision likely by the end of June, a court spokeswoman said.

Supreme court to decide case on school strip search