• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, September 2, 2009

Amazon has joined the roster of opponents to a proposed settlement of a lawsuit by authors and publishers against Google.

In court papers filed this week, Amazon argues that the deal would give Google an "effective monopoly" over orphan works, or books whose copyright holders can't be located. Amazon says that such a deal not only violates federal antitrust law, but also "represents an unprecedented rewriting of copyright law through judicial action."

"The settlement proposed by the parties to this case should not be approved," Amazon alleges in its court papers. "It is unfair to authors, publishers, and others whose works would be the subject of a compulsory license for the life of the copyright in favor of Google and the newly created Book Rights Registry."

The agreement would resolve a 2005 copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google for its book digitization project. The ambitious $125 million settlement agreement calls for Google to fund a new book rights registry, similar to the music industry's ASCAP and BMI, and will allow Google to sell downloads of books at prices that it sets with the registry.

In an especially controversial portion of the deal, the settlement allows Google to digitize orphan works without fear of copyright infringement lawsuits. Currently, no one can publish orphan works without risking liability -- which can run as high as $150,000 per infringement.

Google spokesperson Gabriel Stricker said: "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. 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."

But although Google characterizes the deal as non-exclusive, critics say that the orphan works provisions would nonetheless give Google an unfair advantage because no one else would be immune from lawsuits for digitizing or selling such material.