Any thoughts?
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited November 25, 2008).]
The bigger issue I see is the "out of print" v. current books distinction on whether Google is free to use the otherwise copyrighted material without express consent.
But, if the settlement is approved, Google's found a way, sort of, around the copyrights of the authors. It can use the content but has to remit payments on the sales, the snippet didn't say what the royalty arrangement woudl be, to a clearing house which in theory will get the money to the author. BUT it still means Google can post your copyrighted work without charge if your book happens to be "out of print" and only pay for that use if it sells the content.
Scary.
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited November 25, 2008).]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/nov/25/google-publishing
It seems that booksellers are likely to lose out to online sales and a Google monopoly. Monopoly power over the world's printed knowledge? What are we thinking of? What if Google gets taken over by people with strong religious views? What if it already has?! (Flash fiction contest anyone?)
Pat
No need for a flash on that scenario--1984 has already been written.
But I wasn't aware than Google is? Any particular brand?
But I admit I'm not familiar with the details of this---the SFWA comments didn't help me much in understanding it.
(I recall, once, it was claimed that you couldn't resell an individual copy of a book without compensating the copyright holders. Besides the fact that it's unenforceable, it seemed to me that if your personal copy has been bought and paid for, it's yours to dispose of as you see fit. (There are other issues, like "stripped" books for example, but you see what I'm talking about.))
I thought the comment from Talespinner's link was interesting, the one giving the perspective of brick-and-mortar booksellers. It seems like they have little to gain and everything to lose. I guess they'd better put up a google kiosk in their shops. (I've seen eBay stores where, I presume, they sell stuff-n-junk by proxy.)
Pshaw.
There are extreme "miltant" atheists, but please don't tar all atheists withthis broad-brush fear-mongering accusation. It is precisely the same as saying "Christians are religious extremists" or "Jains are religious extremists." Some are. Most aren't.
First thing to say is this: the copyright laws enable an author to protect her work and get paid for it. They are meant to stop unauthorized copying. They have nothing to say about a book being resold. If an author wants to release her work without copyright protection, she can. Copyright laws place no restrictions on writing at all.
What Google are doing with out-of-print books is this: scanning them all into a huge database and making them available on-line for search, read and purchase.
They did this dishonestly. They started scanning books without bothering to ask for copyright holders' permission, claiming that was too arduous. They clearly believe that their lofty mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" places them beyond law, ethics and respect for the rights of individuals.
In the "settlement" their "partners" (the people who sued them for breaking copyright law) have been bullied into agreement.
Who asked Google to "organize" the world's information? What qualifies them to do it on our behalf? What's their editorial policy on what's in, what's ignored? (There's no such thing as neutral editorial--even the BBC can't do it.) Are they now the arbiters of taste in out-of-print material? Where's the competition and accountability? All this scares me.
What annoys me too is that while they will organize the world's out-of-print books, they will only be available in the USA. Nowhere else, until we become "partners".
They'll scan Shakespeare and kill off Stratford's bookshops.
The information Google wants is that which is helpful in predicting consumer tastes and buying patterns, yet they dress themselves up as a service to the world which is actually only delivered to America. Like Anne, I trust these people (or are they machines now?) less and less each day.
Cheers,
Pat
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited November 26, 2008).]
But Shakespeare's works are long out of copyright. Anyone can do this (Project Gutenberg, IIRC, already has, and dozens of physical editions are available, some extremely cheaply). Should Stratford's bookshops have some kind of monopoly on Shakespeare editions? I fail to see why someone who owns a bookshop in the home town of an author who died a few hundred years ago should have any particular rights over that author's work.
I like books. I like physical, holdable, books. I know this; we've just sipped box after box after box of them to the US and I am hoping they arrive safely early next year. I personally don't like reading off a screen for long periods. I'm also yet to be convinced by audiobooks, which are becoming extremely popular in the US (and I can see the appeal, I just don't think it's necessarily the way I personally want to "consume" a book).
Delivery mechanisms are changing. GoogleBooks is not (necessarily) about replacing other mechanisms of delivery. Yes, I have concerns about what they do, but they seem to have been soundly kicked into respecting copyright law (which, incidentally, is more stringent in the US than many other countries - check Disney for details...).
The new marketing routes that technology is adding to the world are still being shaken out. Everyone likes getting "free" product, but no-one likes providing free product unless they are gaining in some other way. There is some evidence that free ebooks can benefit authors and publishers (when Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" was freely available, sales of his other work increased - but so did sales of "American Gods" tself; peopl readthe e-book and wanted to ownthe "real thing").
I'm an author. I'm a paid author; not a well-paid one, hardly a pro, but I want to keep doing this and I DO want to be paid for my work. I would still write if I didn't get paid (I wrote for 30 years before I started submiting and selling), but I would much rather be paid if I can. I believe in author's rights. I've signed avariety of contracts that have done various things with those rights, for various levels of financial compensation, and I'll continue to do so. I'll watch what GoogleBooks are doing, but I'm yet to be convinced that they are a bad thing for either authors or consumers.
True, Shakespeare isn't covered by copyright law any more. I got carried away. My point is that they will make life harder for small bookshops all over the world, while making the service available only in America. They will scan books written by English writers yet not make them available in England. I'll lose my local bookshop and be unable to see stuff online.
Having ignored copyright, they're not trustworthy. Their motive is not to help society or writers, it is to raise revenues from selling advertizing, for that is what Google does. They do not care what their impact is on the writing world and are unsafe custodians for such a prize, especially when, given their domination of the search engine space and their finanancial clout (it takes serious money to buy the computers to store all this stuff) nobody else is going to do it. They will monopolize the indexing and searching of out-of-print material and monopoly power is always bad, without exception. I haven't checked but I bet those "settelements" with their "partners" are exclusive contracts.
Suppose they decide that certain material should not be published? If local bookshops disappear, and with them the remaining paper, non-electronic copies of out-of-print books, how will books that Google disapprove circulate?
They have the capability to stifle knowledge, and that makes them a target for irresponsible groups. How long before an extreme religious group puts together the cash to buy Google and withdraw all out-of-print books they dislike from market?
What if a foreign government leans on them and says they must not scan an out-of-print book or be blocked from that country? On previous form, they will comply with the request (to preserve their revenues from that country) and the book will not be scanned.
And let's not forget, Google will go after the in-print market as well ...
Cheers,
Pat
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited November 27, 2008).]
As for the settlement with Google, I want to think more about it before commenting.
I only wanted to share someone else's take on the actual topic of this topic.
I really don't understand how the courts could have given Google the right to do this.
Change is coming, for good or bad. Don't we live in interesting times. Who will reap the whirlwind?
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited March 19, 2009).]
Google has the right to settle a class action, if plaintiff agrees, and they -- the Author's Guild -- have.
Copyright Law still stands and its interpretation has not been altered by the Court. When Google scanned people's in-copyright work they were acting illegally. Now, they ask permission via various agreements with publishers, if I understand it correctly.
Google were sued by the Author's Guild, on behalf of authors. They reached an agreement with regard to the illegally scanned stuff which has to be ratified by the Judge in June.
http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/member-alert-google.html
If, as an author, you do not want to be represented by the Author's Guild and would prefer to take Google to court yourself or as part of some other class action suit, you can; that's what the opt-out is for.
(And yes, Google's approach of taking away copyright and only giving it back when sued is despicable. To that extent, I think the anger of the blog post's author is well placed.)
Going forwards, they'll respect copyright law and make payments to copyright holders. It's not clear to me whether those payments will be fair.
http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/#3
In the UK Google have been strong-arming the Performing Rights Society into accepting smaller payments than they (the PRS) want for the rights of music writers. As a negotiating tactic, Google removed popular music videos from YouTube and threatened only to allow this sales channel to musicians if the PRS will agree to Google's terms.
The more I see of Google's hubris, the less I like all things Google. From 'brand to trust' Google has moved in my mind to number one in my list of 'brands most devious and manipulative', and I use their products as little as possible with all their tracking options (the ones I'm aweare of) off.
Edited to add: I should not have said "Going forwards, they'll respect copyright law" but rather, they'll stay within copyright law until and unless, once more, it suits them not to.
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited March 19, 2009).]
quote:
Perhaps I should delete the "religious discussion" posts, because they really don't add anything to the topic...
Better to have them here than in a critique thread though, imho. At least we can see the forum title (open discussions about writing), realise that a subject may get particularly opinionated, and decide whether to get involved or ignore it. Or perhaps there should be a distinct 'venting' forum that heated debates can be moved to
As far as I can tell, although Google's offence was large scale (the material is on the internet so gazillions of copies could be out there) they didn't sell it. The law does not seem to recognise that they make their money through ads. I suspect that Google's lawyers deliberately kept the offence in the civil arena, and made sure there was no possibility of a criminal offence.
If, as I surmise, Google kept their transgression to a civil offence, then the worst they face is having to pay compensation to copyright holders and to a company which makes as much money as Google, that's not a big deal.
In other words, Google have so much money, and so little morality, they feel able to ignore other people's rights.
I agree it will be shocking if the Judge agrees to the settlement, for it will set a precedent and encourage companies like Google to ignore the intent and morality of the law, and commit civil offences in the interests of being competitive. Those companies of moral principle who stay within the law will be penalised competitively, for they will not be able to develop illegal products and make them legal retrospectively.
(On the religious thing, my original point -- that the settlement should bear in mind that Google could at some time in future be taken over by religious extremists who might censor content -- still stands. It is a matter of some regret that some thoughtless, unnecessary definitions of "religious extremist" potentially derailed the thread and I would support the deletion of those posts if it's necessary to enable the substantive discussion to continue.)
I look at removing comments as the nuclear option: To be used only as a last resort. Or, if we get mad at the Japanese again.
For the record, I wasn't offended by the comments. I found them laughable, and easily shrugged off. (I'm an atheist. Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone.) If anyone wants to debate that particular matter, start another thread, as opposed to deleting the comments.
On a related topic, how about we point out the age of the previous post when reviving a long-inactive thread? It's easy to overlook the date and some of us won't recognize a thread as old.
Maybe more like "This topic has been out of action since last fall" would be better.
I'd consider putting an instruction like that up somewhere, but I'm not sure anyone would read it. Suggestions, anyone?
As a writer, I understand the angst over copyright. But there is a flip side to this coin... in this information age, so much information is poised to be lost if we do not archive it in some way. Printed pages deteriorate, fires burn, floods wash away without discrimination. Electronic archives may be the only way to preserve some of these rare manuscripts.
That's true.
But is that not part of the role of the Library of Congress, or here in the UK, the British Library? (I do hope they're scanning the important stuff and archiving it electronically; I can't imagine they're not, are they?)
The difference being, these are community-owned institutions with democratic oversight and governance, imperfect maybe, but surely preferable to a commercial outfit that prides profit above principle, evidenced by taking away author's rights and only giving them back when sued.
Further, as I remarked earlier, how can we be sure Google will protect such archives properly. How can we be sure Google will always be owned by people with high regard for public interest and history? ... How can we be sure that is the case, even now?
If, as democracies, we want to preserve our historical records, I would suggest we need institutions with proper democratic governance and oversight to do it. Not Google, with its prime motivation of making money.