In 2005, Google was sued by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers for their ambitious program to scan millions of books from university libraries and make them available for viewing online.

Today they have announced a settlement, and it's excellent: Google will make all books available in full online (some for a fee) and authors will get a share of the revenue! (Authors are also allowed to opt out.) Public libraries will all get a free view-only license, while universities will be able to buy subscriptions allowing free access from campus.

From what I can see, the agreement so far only involves being able to VIEW the books in their entirety, but the agreement specifically anticipates further deals being made in the future. So it may be only a matter of time until we can download any of this vast array of digital e-books from Google for a fee!

You can find coverage of the settlement on PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/152918/google_settles_copyright_lawsuits_with_publishers_ authors.html) and from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/technology/internet/29google.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink). The Authors Guild also has an official announcement page (http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html) with substantially more details. The deal has yet to be approved by the U.S. District Court.

I am not sure it is likely we will ever reach the point of being able to download them; publishers will still want to sell the books if possible. Not very easy to do if you can download it for free and then convert it to your format of choice.

--
Bill

What a coincidence, as we were discussing this only yesterday. Well, I zoomed back to www.books.google.com but the 2 books I looked at yesterday are still not complete and have the blanked out pages.

I wonder when the full texts will be available?

What a coincidence, as we were discussing this only yesterday. Well, I zoomed back to www.books.google.com but the 2 books I looked at yesterday are still not complete and have the blanked out pages.

I wonder when the full texts will be available?
I looked at the FAQ released on the Authors Guild site and saw this:
14. How long will it take for these new services to become publicly available?

Before any of these services can be made publicly available, the settlement needs approval by the court before which the class action is pending. Once authorized, Google and the Book Rights Registry will be working to launch these services as soon as possible.
They also say that the agreement will only affect Google Books for U.S. users. Users from other countries will not get access to these features (yet, at least).

This is what needs to happen:

1. Users pay $5 - $15 per month for a full access subscription

2. Authors can opt out, but by default all books are available from within a Kindle like E-Ink reader, or as view only using any browser.

3. Small fee possible or free for download in any number of formats if Author opts in for free download or paying download, price per download is authors decision. The idea, is if Author provides free download, he might get a larger share from that big $5 and $15 as well as ad revenue, a bigger share then just being part of the viewing only deal.


- Thing is, by viewing deal only, Google knows exactly which pages people are reading, for how long people are viewing each page, thus Google can know if users are really reading the whole book or just skimming it. Which compensates the author differently. If the book is completely read, this gives the author maximum compensation.

- The author can decide to display advertisment or not throughout their content in view mode which may or may not provide them with more revenue, especially when people just search for words within their book. Though choosing ad-free can make the book more readable in view mode by more people. Also the ad-free viewing might require the subscription while ad-supported could be freely available to everyone without a subscription needed.


Now what needs to happen is this, just as with Android OS, or based on Android OS, Google needs to make an E-Ink HSDPA/EVDO operating system standard that has full support for this subscription based and advertising based full web text access system.

This is how things should be, for a fixed $5 or $15 monthly fee, all users should have complete full access to all books, all newspapers, all blogs, basically all text ever written by anyone ever on the whole Internet, everywhere ever written. And all of it has to be instantly available on an Internet connected E-Ink device, like a Google version of a Kindle, or a firmware update for the Kindle.

Paying $10 per e-book is too expensive, paying $4 per newspaper edition is too expensive, paying $1.5 per blog per month is too expensive. Access to all the worlds content needs to be all included in a fixed affordable monthly subscription, and also monetized using advertisment. Or for authors that absolutely want pay-per-view or pay-per-download, they can opt for it.

But quickly all authors will see, they earn the most money by putting all of their content out there part of the free ads-free subscription based monetization.

This will revolutionize blogging, since if your blogging gets read, you will get it monetized automatically in a huge way.

Google needs to do this for music, for video, for movies, for pictures, for art and for everything.

From the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/29/google-books-publishing-online-royalties


After searching for books via Google, users will be offered free samples of chosen titles, with the option to buy more. Although it is as yet unclear how much books will cost to download, a royalty organisation, the Book Rights Registry, will take payments from Google (after it has taken a 37% cut) and distribute them to the authors and publishers. "This historic settlement is a win for everyone," said Richard Sarnoff, chairman of the publishers association. "It's hard work writing a book, and even harder work getting paid for it," said Roy Blount, president of the guild. "This deal makes good sense."

...

To start with, the scheme will be targeted at universities and organisations which will pay large institutional subscriptions on behalf of students and researchers. But the deal also enables ordinary customers to download any of the 7m books already scanned into Google's database.

I am not sure it is likely we will ever reach the point of being able to download them; publishers will still want to sell the books if possible. Not very easy to do if you can download it for free and then convert it to your format of choice.
Even the ones you can read all of will be problematic for download/convert. They have PDFs which are essentially scanned page images, and a "View as plain text option", but the plain text would require a lot of editing and cleanup. (I grabbed a copy of Max Weber's _The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_ with a view to converting, and gave up when I saw the work required.)
______
Dennis

One bit not mentioned here: as part of the deal, Google is contributing $125 million to the creation of a Book Rights Repository. Part of the problem with making any book available is getting the rights to do so. With publishers going out of business or being acquired, it can be hard to discover who actually holds the rights to a particular title. There's a fair amount of work technically still under copyright and requiring permission to make available, but who do you ask? The author is dead, the publisher is out of business, and nobody knows who handles the estate...

This is intended to be a place to collect that information. Since it's Google, we can anticipate that it will be searchable. It will be a boon for places like Project Gutenberg, who must make sure a work is not still in copyright before releasing an etext, and others who might like to return a book to publication but can't find the rights holder to make a deal to do it.
______
Dennis

One bit not mentioned here: as part of the deal, Google is contributing $125 million to the creation of a Book Rights Repository. Part of the problem with making any book available is getting the rights to do so. With publishers going out of business or being acquired, it can be hard to discover who actually holds the rights to a particular title. There's a fair amount of work technically still under copyright and requiring permission to make available, but who do you ask? The author is dead, the publisher is out of business, and nobody knows who handles the estate...

Yes. Part of what I like about this deal is that books become part of the system by default, and any royalties are automatically collected and held in trust for the author until a long time has passed. So basically, it's a way to make the books available, respect copyright, and collect royalties, even if the copyright holder can't be found. It's a great win for everyone who gets access to those books, and yet still a win for copyright holders too.

I really wish that Google would start providing all its books in epub format.

Even the ones you can read all of will be problematic for download/convert. They have PDFs which are essentially scanned page images, and a "View as plain text option", but the plain text would require a lot of editing and cleanup. (I grabbed a copy of Max Weber's _The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_ with a view to converting, and gave up when I saw the work required.)
______
Dennis

an english translation?

A scanned page image is essentially a photograph or picture of the page. Like a picture it is not seen as text (characters) by the ebook program. What you have to do is run the scanned pages through an OCR program to convert the images to text so that it is treated as text instead of an image. The "gotcha" is that conversion usually results in many errors that require a human to edit the text. I can't tell you how many ebooks I've read that are poorly converted scanned pages. And these are from legitimate publishers.

From personal P.D. scanning work experience, the OCr cleanup is 80-90 percent of the work....

I just can't even start imagining how will Google acomplish the task of geting all books, magazines, newspapers in text format. As said above, the OCR and editing/cleanup is very time consuming. Multiply that for bilions of books and other writen media... My head hurts.

I just can't even start imagining how will Google acomplish the task of geting all books, magazines, newspapers in text format. As said above, the OCR and editing/cleanup is very time consuming. Multiply that for bilions of books and other writen media... My head hurts.

Google should turn to a community based collaborative approach. Where anyone who contribute over a certain quota get time-limited access to the whole archive.

Keep in mind that another one of googles arms is working hard on the OCRopus project, which is designed to improve scanning of books. Most Commercial OCR systems available today are designed towards the scanning business documents. They make no secret that the driver for this project is the google books initiative.

I'm sure there will still be flaws in the scans (they'll never hit 100%), but the improvements will be very welcome, and if they are releasing non-drm'ed scans, then we'll be able to fix the scanning artifacts and re-convert for a reading device. This is a big improvement over the amazing amount of flaws that I find in DRMed eBooks, which I cannot correct and will continue to drive me crazy each time I read a book (I'm a cronic re-reader).

Yup, Google should provide collaborative manual corrections of OCR using basically an E-Ink reader that has an annotations feature like the Kindle or even better, one that has USB keyboard or bluetooth full sized foldable keyboard and where you can put up the E-ink reader on a stand on the table.

Google could also use this same collaborative manual corrections system for translations.

When millions of users get to participate in an automatic collaborative way, you can quickly get the full OCR and translations done.

In the same way as a Wiki, you get to log exactly which user corrected which words, this way you can hold users accountable and automatically block any attempt at vandalising texts. Also you can automatically compensate the work done by people to correct OCR and machine translation errors.

A scanned page image is essentially a photograph or picture of the page. Like a picture it is not seen as text (characters) by the ebook program. What you have to do is run the scanned pages through an OCR program to convert the images to text so that it is treated as text instead of an image. The "gotcha" is that conversion usually results in many errors that require a human to edit the text. I can't tell you how many ebooks I've read that are poorly converted scanned pages. And these are from legitimate publishers.
This is the reason I don't buy ebooks any more. Now I mostly read free books or books out of copyright. I once spent about $30 on ebooks and they all had major errors or flaws that were clearly OCR-related. Many would have been fixed by a spellcheck program or easily noticed by a human proofreader. One book was missing all of its quotation marks. It's going to be a while before I trust e-publishers enough to give them money again. :(

Hopefully Google can get OCRopus running well enough to make decent ebooks available...

an english translation?
Yes. As it happens, I found a much more usable HTML rendition here (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/weber/cover.html).
______
Dennis

A scanned page image is essentially a photograph or picture of the page. Like a picture it is not seen as text (characters) by the ebook program. What you have to do is run the scanned pages through an OCR program to convert the images to text so that it is treated as text instead of an image. The "gotcha" is that conversion usually results in many errors that require a human to edit the text. I can't tell you how many ebooks I've read that are poorly converted scanned pages. And these are from legitimate publishers.
Precisely. No OCR program is perfect. Ligatures are a special problem, and multi-column formats can throw the OCR software included with things like home scanners. Higher end professional gear does better, but it costs, and there will still be editing and proofreading to get good copy.

The publishers whose lacking work you read skimped on or eliminated the editing step to cut costs.

(And that's just for texts in the Roman alphabet. If the original book was in something else, all bets are off.)
______
Dennis

After reading the Authors Guild FAQ there were a few things I found interesting.

1) Books that are in print will NOT be available to even preview, unless the rightsholder decides to participate in the program.

2) Books that are not in print will be available for preview, unless the rightsholder decides not to participate.

3) Only the Preview is available to us for FREE. If we want to view the whole book we need to pay for it, unless it is out of copyright or we are accessing the books through a library that is subscribed to the Google service. At this point in time there is no monthly subscription fee available to the general public.

4) How much will we need to pay to access a full view of the books? They are not saying.

Personally, I'm happy to see that more books are being made available to us. I also like the idea a previous poster made about Google offering their own eReader. Something like the Plastic Logic device, which can display full page PDFs, would be pretty cool. I really don't want to read PDF books on a backlit computer screen.

It may also be possible for Google to provide just the text of the book at some point. As others on this forum have already pointed out, the Google books are PDF books, and a PDF is generally just a scanned page. However, a PDF can also contain the machine readable text within the PDF. And most (or all) the Google PDFs already contain this text. This is how they know which books, and book pages, to display to you when you do a search. It is also how they know which words to highlight when they display the pages. At least that is my understanding.

A scanned page image is essentially a photograph or picture of the page. Like a picture it is not seen as text (characters) by the ebook program. What you have to do is run the scanned pages through an OCR program to convert the images to text so that it is treated as text instead of an image. The "gotcha" is that conversion usually results in many errors that require a human to edit the text. I can't tell you how many ebooks I've read that are poorly converted scanned pages. And these are from legitimate publishers.


Google should turn to a community based collaborative approach. Where anyone who contribute over a certain quota get time-limited access to the whole archive.



Google could also use this same collaborative manual corrections system for translations.

When millions of users get to participate in an automatic collaborative way, you can quickly get the full OCR and translations done.





That's why we've got a project like recaptcha

http://recaptcha.net/learnmore.html

After reading the Authors Guild FAQ there were a few things I found interesting.

1) Books that are in print will NOT be available to even preview, unless the rightsholder decides to participate in the program.

2) Books that are not in print will be available for preview, unless the rightsholder decides not to participate.
No surprise. The lawsuit was in part brought by authors stung because Google hadn't specifically secured their permision to make their texts available.

Google was uning an "opt out" model. The Author's Guild wanted it "opt in".

3) Only the Preview is available to us for FREE. If we want to view the whole book we need to pay for it, unless it is out of copyright or we are accessing the books through a library that is subscribed to the Google service. At this point in time there is no monthly subscription fee available to the general public.
I don't expect to see a general public subscription fee. Subscriptions for libraries are one thing. Offering it the the general public is more complex.

4) How much will we need to pay to access a full view of the books? They are not saying.
Probably because it hasn't been decided, and may vary by book, depending on the terms required by the rights holder. (I can see some rights holders having a wildly optimistic view of how much anyone will pay to view their book...)

Personally, I'm happy to see that more books are being made available to us. I also like the idea a previous poster made about Google offering their own eReader. Something like the Plastic Logic device, which can display full page PDFs, would be pretty cool. I really don't want to read PDF books on a backlit computer screen.
I can't see Google getting into the consumer hardware business. I can see Google offering the required software under an open source license, like the Android cell phone OS, that someone else can put into hardware to offer a reader.

It may also be possible for Google to provide just the text of the book at some point. As others on this forum have already pointed out, the Google books are PDF books, and a PDF is generally just a scanned page. However, a PDF can also contain the machine readable text within the PDF. And most (or all) the Google PDFs already contain this text. This is how they know which books, and book pages, to display to you when you do a search. It is also how they know which words to highlight when they display the pages. At least that is my understanding.
You can get the text of the book now, but it's not terribly useful without a lot of editing and cleanup.
______
Dennis

Even the ones you can read all of will be problematic for download/convert. They have PDFs which are essentially scanned page images, and a "View as plain text option", but the plain text would require a lot of editing and cleanup. (I grabbed a copy of Max Weber's _The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_ with a view to converting, and gave up when I saw the work required.)
______
Dennis


The work around I've been using for some time now is to take the PDF scanned images and convert them using Adobe Pro. Although it renders a large MB file, you can then easily - and I mean easily and quickly - convert or copy into another document to an output of your choice. (Since I already used Adobe Pro extensively to generate PDF's, this was not an added expense for me.)

I can't see Google getting into the consumer hardware business. I can see Google offering the required software under an open source license, like the Android cell phone OS, that someone else can put into hardware to offer a reader.
They could do this, especially if they wanted to offer some interactive services, e.g. the discussion features in DotReader. (In fact, Google might want to look at acquiring the DotReader project-- I think they could do some very interesting things with it. Anyone know anybody at Google to pass that suggestion along to?)

Or Google could just go with ePub, as someone has already suggested.

BBC coverage of the deal here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7695507.stm

Consumer subscription is mentionned in the FAQ as one o the features that will be provided.

The question is how many books can Google get to be part of that subscription plan.

I expect for like $5 a month to start with, Google could provide unlimited access to books of which rights holders have opted in to be part of that full access subscription plan.

Quickly, millions of users will participate, and this will encourage more and more authors to be part of it, until it kind of becomes an industry standard for all authors to automatically make all of their works part of that full access subscription plan.

Later, a new law will provide that subscription plan to every citizen through taxes. Where everyone pays proportionally to their income and to their wealth.

How fast that transistion will take until everyone gets full unlimited access to the equivalent of Amazon Kindle Store, Project Gutenberg and Google Books put together. That will depend on how fast and how well Google integrates this new plan, and it depends on Google wanting to promote that subscription plan rather than on-demand pay-for-download plans. Perhaps Google like Apple thinks they can make more money selling each work at expensive prices by itself instead of providing the whole of it for a low affordable subscription price.

The new Rights Registry system that Google is setting up, it should provide a quick way for online bloggers and independent publishers to get their blogs, feeds and Google Docs publishings registered and quickly part of that exact same global access subscription plan.

Sure Google is not a hardware manufacturer yet. They think it's better to create the free open-source OS for other manufacturers to use. The problem is I think, if Google wanted to, they could be the best manufacturer in the world. Perhaps the best solution would be for Google to not only open their software, release it and give it away for free, but also to design the reference designs and also in fact mass manufacture the reference designs as well. And have the hardware reference designs also be totally open source if possible.

For Google to put some free, open, mass manufactured reference designs out there, and actually even sell them at cost price, skipping all intermediaries, directly from manufacturing to the consumers. This, I think, will enable even more manufacturers to take those designs and sell them.

Hopefully, Obama will take Eric Schmidt as country CTO, and this will let someone new come in and be the new CEO at Google, and change things a little, so Google becomes the USA's official tech company that not only provides the worlds best free open source OS, but also mass manufactures $100 laptops, $150 E-Ink readers, $100 Android pocket devices and $5000 Electric Cars.

I'm thrilled with this decision. Google Books has already provided me with hundreds of public domain books that I could not have found without them. And now with this agreement, the frustration of knowing a book is there, yet unavailable will be a thing of the past. No longer will I sigh in defeat when a book that's still in copyright even though it's out of print is denied me.

The used book business will suffer from this, though, and I am sad about that. I have been able to purchase quite a few OOP books that I first learned about through Google Books, some at fairly high cost, but now that book buying will be reduced considerably.

While I agree about wanting readers and text and all of that, to be honest, I'm so happy to just have the contents of the book available to me, it seems horribly ungrateful of me to complain about the format. I'll take PDFs over nothing any day!

Charbax,

I think you might be jumping the gun a bit. Their FAQ says, "The agreement allows for other services and uses, such as Print-On-Demand, Consumer Subscription and others, to be agreed in the future." As the agreement is currently written it only provides for library and corporate subscriptions. I kind of doubt that the rightsholders will agree to a $5 month subscription plan for the general public.

This is a settlement. Google was forced into this because of immense pressure from the publishing industry. Google's Book project was a massive, systematic raping of copyright, and everyone knew it. Everyone seems to be praising Google for this, but this is a settlement from a copyright-infringement lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild. Praise them, instead (there was also a separate suit by the Association of American Publishers on behalf of five big publishers). Google aren't the good guys, here. They violated copyright, and are side-stepping a judgment by this settlement.

Systematic raping of copyright?

This is a settlement. Google was forced into this because of immense pressure from the publishing industry. Google's Book project was a massive, systematic raping of copyright, and everyone knew it. Everyone seems to be praising Google for this, but this is a settlement from a copyright-infringement lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild. Praise them, instead (there was also a separate suit by the Association of American Publishers on behalf of five big publishers). Google aren't the good guys, here. They violated copyright, and are side-stepping a judgment by this settlement.
i understand your point and while this is technically true i tend to nuance my judgement with the fact that current copyright law is bloated and abusive and has completely occulted the original spirit and motivation of its creation. so i can't consider copyright law / holders to be 100% the side of good (in other words, i make a very significant disctinction here between the legality and the morality / ethicality of these actions). therefore, even if copyright was infringed to some degree, i'm not convinced this is necessarily such an undefendable thing (it might be moreso, if copyright laws were more reasonable).

also, many books which are still in copyright are also out of print and incredibly hard (or impossible) to find. this is one of the very dangerous side-effects of the current copyright law. with this in mind, google is actually safeguarding a significant portion of our collective culture for posterity, and making it far more accessible than publishers have / could.

and since the publishers are ultimately the ones who are simultaneously profiting the most from the current copyright laws and falling down on the job about making (especially obscure and therefore less profitable) copyright works available, my view is that google is actually doing them a favor to some degree, and more importantly, doing future generations of readers a favor by giving them the chance to discover books which might otherwise have been lost forever.

i do grant you that some aspects of google's actions are less justifiable, for example the original opt-out (rather than opt-in) approach for books which are still in print and still in copyright, but nonetheless *all* the parties involved (including the publishers and the authors, that is to say the plaignants in the case) recognize that the true winners in this case are the readers.

i just don't think it's quite as black and white as your post makes it seem.

I do thank the Authors Guild - every year with my dues. This settlement proves their worth in my mind. Yes, I believe Google stepped over the line with in copyright and in print books. But the OOP books - those are an amazing resource that was slowly becoming inaccessible, not just to those who didn't have university library privileges, but to everyone.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I buy a lot of used OOP books. I would say a good half of those have been purged library editions, so even the libraries would not have these books available. (Those purged library editions were often the only version of a book available, as well.) So while Google did overstep (imo) with the in print books, this settlement is, through Google, providing an immeasureably valuable service by giving us back books that would have been otherwise lost.

Readers are indeed the winners with this settlement.

The work around I've been using for some time now is to take the PDF scanned images and convert them using Adobe Pro. Although it renders a large MB file, you can then easily - and I mean easily and quickly - convert or copy into another document to an output of your choice. (Since I already used Adobe Pro extensively to generate PDF's, this was not an added expense for me.)
Yep, and that's an effective tactic for you because you already have Adobe Pro for other reasons, so it's not an additional cost.

A lot of folks who might like to do that sort of conversion won't have Adobe Pro, and might consider getting it to set the cost of entry higher than they feel like paying.
______
Dennis

Oh, our first fight! I can't wait for the make-up sex.

therefore, even if copyright was infringed to some degree...

The degree here was the highest ever by anyone in history. (Cue the Kip soundbite from Napolean Dynamite. "Like anyone could know that...") It was an intentional, systematic, corporate raiding of entire libraries. It was a private company deciding to ignore copyright for their own profit.

We may not like certain laws, laws may be wrong, but to ignore and redefine things... I'll stop before this becomes a conversation about the Bush Administration.

also, many books which are still in copyright are also out of print and incredibly hard (or impossible) to find. this is one of the very dangerous side-effects of the current copyright law. with this in mind, google is actually safeguarding a significant portion of our collective culture for posterity, and making it far more accessible than publishers have / could.

I agree, but Google was not being altruistic here. They saw an opportunity to grab content they thought nobody was watching. Like a lady's purse on the back of a chair, so to speak. Out of Print, Out of Mind. And they didn't do so to "safeguard" it. They are a for-profit company. Publishers and OOP works are like a company with particular goods locked away in a warehouse. Because they keep the goods out of circulation does not give another company the right to break into the warehouse and use those goods for their own profit, no matter how much you and I want the goods.

i do grant you that some aspects of google's actions are less justifiable, for example the original opt-out (rather than opt-in) approach for books which are still in print and still in copyright, but nonetheless *all* the parties involved (including the publishers and the authors, that is to say the plaignants in the case) recognize that the true winners in this case are the readers..

It was a land grab. They got caught, were sued, and forced to behave. In this instance. Suits about YouTube content and other media grabs are still in the works.

this settlement is, through Google...

Again, not "through Google", but through a legal settlement. Google was perfectly content to ignore the law and do whatever they wanted, until this settlement.

By 'through Google' I meant that the scans of the books are being made available. The Authors Guild didn't scan the books, the publishers association didn't scan the books, Google did. Therefore, the books are being made available through Google. The settlement allows (and dis-allows) some of those scans being made available, but the scans themselves are available through Google.

That's what I was referring to (and which seems pretty clear in my original post).

Oh, our first fight! I can't wait for the make-up sex.
are we fighting ? i think i'm just disagreeing with you. :rolleyes:

The degree here was the highest ever by anyone in history. (Cue the Kip soundbite from Napolean Dynamite. "Like anyone could know that...") It was an intentional, systematic, corporate raiding of entire libraries. It was a private company deciding to ignore copyright for their own profit.

We may not like certain laws, laws may be wrong, but to ignore and redefine things... I'll stop before this becomes a conversation about the Bush Administration.
well, again, technically you're right ; but i just can't get that worked up about copyright laws, given how utterly, profoundly wrong and actually harmful i think the current ones are. (and although i don't in any way think or claim that google's actions had anything to do with this, i will point out that yes, sometimes when a law is truly wrong, you should deliberately ignore it, and call it civil disobedience). while i am capable of getting worked up about something on principle alone, i fear this is not one of those things, because ultimately the legal infringement that was done is not truly unethical, in my opinion, and the ultimate result is overall positive and beneficial to humanity in general, which the current copyright laws are not (on the contrary). i'm not saying the ends justify the means in every situation, just that in this particular situation, i'm not convinced either party is more righteous than the other.

I agree, but Google was not being altruistic here. They saw an opportunity to grab content they thought nobody was watching. Like a lady's purse on the back of a chair, so to speak. Out of Print, Out of Mind. And they didn't do so to "safeguard" it. They are a for-profit company. Publishers and OOP works are like a company with particular goods locked away in a warehouse. Because they keep the goods out of circulation does not give another company the right to break into the warehouse and use those goods for their own profit, no matter how much you and I want the goods.

It was a land grab. They got caught, were sued, and forced to behave. In this instance. Suits about YouTube content and other media grabs are still in the works.
well, no, not *really* like a lady's purse on the back of a chair (nice try), but let's not have the material goods vs. IP discussion *again*. :rolleyes:

i grant you, google wasn't being altruistic (although... maybe they were also thinking of that aspect. who knows ?), they're out to make money. but so are the publishers, and copyright laws are currently just as much a "land grab" as google's scans (possibly more, in fact). you don't seem to take into account that copyright laws embody pretty much exactly the same things you fault google for, the ultimate difference being that contrary to google not only are they ethically pretty indefensible, they also disserve society's interests overall whereas google ends up actually enriching society (culturally speaking). Out of Print, Out of Mind, exactly : how many books are lost forever because they fall out of print before they fall out of copyright, and everyone forgets about them ?

i'm still not claiming google was not *legally* in the wrong ; it's just that copyright laws don't seem to me deserving of my righteous ire, and i think the google scanning project is a good thing overall, regardless of their motivations and the legality of it, whereas copyright laws need urgently to be drastically reformed (again, making a distinction between law and ethics). yes, as you say they tried to pull a fast one and got caught, and this settlement is an acknowledgement of it... but ironically it seems to me to be a sort of "pot calling the kettle black" situation. the only reason that's the case to begin with is that certain copyright holders (*cough*disney*cough*) pulled a far bigger fast one on *everybody* first, and they *did* get away with it.

i'm still not claiming google was not *legally* in the wrong ; it's just that copyright laws don't seem to me deserving of my righteous ire, and i think the google scanning project is a good thing overall, regardless of their motivations and the legality of it, whereas copyright laws need urgently to be drastically reformed (again, making a distinction between law and ethics). yes, as you say they tried to pull a fast one and got caught, and this settlement is an acknowledgement of it... but ironically it seems to me to be a sort of "pot calling the kettle black" situation. the only reason that's the case to begin with is that certain copyright holders (*cough*disney*cough*) pulled a far bigger fast one on *everybody* first, and they *did* get away with it.

I agree. Copyright laws are ridiculously stringent. I do applaud Google for this effort. Ultimately, having digital copies of all these books is going to benefit society and it's more of an effort than any other group has put forward. What's with the complaint that Google was looking for profit? It's worth noting that Google Books has cost Google much more money than it's made. Even though Google was probably hoping to get to a point at which the project would generate more money than it was taking to support, I don't recall this ever being a vice in the United States. Pardon me if I don't shred any tears because Google isn't a socialist operation. If they were, it'd be a poor excuse for a business model.

OH NOES!!!! GOOGLE IS OUT TO MAKE A PROFIT!!!! VILLAINY!!!! SCANDAL!!!! END OF THE WORLD!!!!

I agree. Copyright laws are ridiculously stringent. I do applaud Google for this effort. Ultimately, having digital copies of all these books is going to benefit society and it's more of an effort than any other group has put forward. What's with the complaint that Google was looking for profit? It's worth noting that Google Books has cost Google much more money than it's made. Even though Google was probably hoping to get to a point at which the project would generate more money than it was taking to support, I don't recall this ever being a vice in the United States. Pardon me if I don't shred any tears because Google isn't a socialist operation. If they were, it'd be a poor excuse for a business model.

OH NOES!!!! GOOGLE IS OUT TO MAKE A PROFIT!!!! VILLAINY!!!! SCANDAL!!!! END OF THE WORLD!!!!

I too, work to make a profit. Please pay attention to the actual objection - it makes for a more productive discussion. It also helps if you avoid hyperbole and characterizing the opposing viewpoint as illiterate ranting.

Google's business model was to make a profit by intentionally circumventing laws. While individuals may do so and plausibly claim "civil disobedience" in some instances, public companies can not. Google did not set out to act as they are now doing, they were sued into doing so by the people from whom they were stealing. Perhaps they should change their name to "Robin Hood", the way some are reacting.

zelda_pinwheel,

I have to say that I am extremely impressed by how well you write and argue your points. You have the ability to disagree without being either condesending or smug (something I don't do very well). I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated reading your thoughts on this subject (I also tend to agree with your position).

Systematic raping of copyright?

Don't pay much attention. Taylor is a rabid google hater. Most of his anti-google comments get pretty ridiculous.

Don't pay much attention. Taylor is a rabid google hater. Most of his anti-google comments get pretty ridiculous.

In what sense? How would you characterize the corporate decision to scan entire libraries in knowing violation of copyright law?

Let's also clarify cause and affect here. I'm not highlighting Google's wrongness because I'm a rabid Google-hater. I'm a Google-hater because of their consistent wrongness. The wrongness isn't even in dispute, as evidenced by their settlement of this lawsuit.

If you can be more specific in your objections, and address me directly rather than in the third person, it would make for a more productive conversation.

Google's business model was to make a profit by intentionally circumventing laws. While individuals may do so and plausibly claim "civil disobedience" in some instances, public companies can not. Google did not set out to act as they are now doing, they were sued into doing so by the people from whom they were stealing. Perhaps they should change their name to "Robin Hood", the way some are reacting.
i don't claim that google was engaging in civil disobedience ; i only mentioned that to make the point that i don't think laws should be followed blindly just because they are laws, and to explain why i am not more scandalised by google's actions in this case. (and i kind of have a soft spot for Robin Hood, you're right... but that is really beside the point). but you're confusing the issue. i know that this is falling into semantics, but copyright infringement and theft are different things, and not of equivalent gravity (to me, but also from a legal standpoint in fact, since if i've understood correctly, theft is a criminal offense whereas copyright infringement is only a civil offense in the US. correct me if i'm wrong ; i think i read that here somewhere). this is an important distinction. and again, if copyright laws were not as morally bankrupt and thoroughly unjustifiable as they are, i would be significantly more likely to defend them. my point of view here though is that neither side is less guilty / more virtuous than the other, and the ultimate result of google's actions are significantly more beneficial to society as a whole than anything else.

zelda_pinwheel,

I have to say that I am extremely impressed by how well you write and argue your points. You have the ability to disagree without being either condesending or smug (something I don't do very well). I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated reading your thoughts on this subject (I also tend to agree with your position).
thanks for the kind words daithi :) i think most people would agree with me that one of the things we like most about MobileRead is the friendly ambiance, so we do our best to maintain the respect of other members that makes that possible. it's really refreshing to see how we can discuss very controversial topics here and rarely see a conversation degenerate... that is thanks to *everyone* making an effort to keep things respectful. it's one of the things i appreciate most about this site. i'm glad you appreciate that too.

of course, it's a lot easier to keep a rational and respectful tone when everyone else is respectful too. :)

of course, it's a lot easier to keep a rational and respectful tone when everyone else is respectful too. :)

I also like it when people are respectful and objective. It can be mighty difficult at times. Well done.

(is it time for the cute kitteh pics?)

You're right. I equate copyright infringement, on the scale practiced by Google (complete, systematic, wholescale) as tantamount to theft, in my moral rainbow. Others do not. Be that as it may, it is still odd to applaud Google for their actions, in this specific case (Book Registry, etc.), since those were not Google's actions. Those were actions Google was forced to make because of a legal settlement.

Google chose to ignore existing laws because they stood in the way of what they wanted to do.

You may feel the laws were unjust to start with, and that Google's goals were beneficent and consistent with your own. Surely you see the slippery slope, though, don't you? That might be true in this one instance, but doesn't it set a rather dangerous precedent? I'm not comfortable with that.

I'm glad that they were caught, sued, and forced to make amends, as rabidly ridiculous as that might seem.

You're right. I equate copyright infringement, on the scale practiced by Google (complete, systematic, wholescale) as tantamount to theft, in my moral rainbow. Others do not. Be that as it may, it is still odd to applaud Google for their actions, in this specific case (Book Registry, etc.), since those were not Google's actions. Those were actions Google was forced to make because of a legal settlement.

Google chose to ignore existing laws because they stood in the way of what they wanted to do.

You may feel the laws were unjust to start with, and that Google's goals were beneficent and consistent with your own. Surely you see the slippery slope, though, don't you? That might be true in this one instance, but doesn't it set a rather dangerous precedent? I'm not comfortable with that.

I'm glad that they were caught, sued, and forced to make amends, as rabidly ridiculous as that might seem.
you are completely right, my judgement here is thoroughly coloured by my feelings about copyright law and the greed and immorality that the current copyright law embodies ; that is why i perceive google as "fighting the good fight" despite the fact that their motivations were surely not noble or altruistic (although if it's true that they are still losing money on this project, i have to wonder just what their motivations were... perhaps they are nobler and more altruistic than we give them credit for). and that is why i don't equate copyright infringement with theft : having read quite a few of Eric Flint's editorials about copyright, its origins, and its true purpose (on the Baen site), among other things, i confess that i see current copyright law as a complete, systematic, wholesale pillaging of our cultural heritage, for the profit of a few greedy copyright holders (*cough*disney*cough*).

yes, ignoring a law because it's inconvenient to our goals can be a slippery slope and it is true that on principle, in the absolute, people should not be allowed to get away with it, and corporations even less than individuals ; so perhaps it was necessary to make google pay to set a precedent for when it's not google scanning copyright books to preserve our cultural heritage, but big oil devastating natural reserves in the name of an easy profit. i think that's the point you're trying to make, and it's a valid point.

nonetheless, as an individual, i can allow myself to make exceptions in my own mind based on extenuating circumstances or specific situations (and in fact so can a judge), and in this specific instance, i remain convinced that overall google's actions are serving a greater good (and are possibly even motivated by that good, at least partially... you never know) and are far more defendable than copyright law, in its current form. so i'm happy about what they're doing, and what it will be bringing us (and by "us" i mean us, individuals and members of global society), and i'm really glad they will be able to continue to do it, and i am thrilled that the next time i want to determine the public domain status of a particular out of print translation of an obscure novel by a hungarian author, with a little luck, i'll be able to consult google's registry (and possibly even obtain the text from google books), instead of fruitlessly exchanging emails with any number of friendly but ultimately helpless hungarian homonymic translators / officials of the copyright bureau / editors, while the novel slips that much further into obscurity, all because a few obscenely rich copyright holders wanted to get that much richer and had the money and influence to insure that they would, to the detriment of all the rest of us.

Ok. But it isn't "Google's Registry". To clarify, the Book Rights Registry was forced upon Google in recognition that authors HAVE rights to their own works, a position Google side-stepped, in this case, by agreeing to this settlement.

ok. :) THE Registry.

(and to further clarify my point of view, i agree with you that authors have rights to their works, and also that they deserve to be compensated for them. however copyright law in its current form goes so far beyond those basic tenets that it nearly occults them completely, in the process completely negating the other half of the equation, the public domain, or the shared collective stock of our culture, which is just as important as authors' rights. that is why i think it needs to be reformed, not because i think authors have no rights.)

And to further clarify mine, Google went the other extreme, treating ALL books as if they were ALL in the public domain, without paying anyone a cent. What this agreement also provides is millions in settlement fees to those authors who's work was stolen infringed upon.

And to further further clarify my position, it's right beside you, baby. As if there's much point in pretending otherwise these days!

One bit not mentioned here: as part of the deal, Google is contributing $125 million to the creation of a Book Rights Repository.

Actually...not exactly, apparently. I was talking last night to someone who works in the copyrights clearance business, and he said that the settlement document was so complex that all the reporters got it wrong. According to him, the $125M is to be divided into four pots: the first two pots going to the lawyers of the publishers and of the Authors Guild. The rest is to be divided between creating that rights repository and compensating publishers and authors whose copyrights have (arguably) been violated.

That's the story as I understand it.

I'm just starting to read this thread, so sorry if someone has already pointed this out.

Beside author's compensation, If all books are available. People will generally tend to get lazy to read books. But preview will be good source for someone to choose.

It is also my understanding that Google's position was that they were within "fair use" limitations of the copyright law. Scanning all those books and placing "portions" on the web did not hurt the rights holders. In fact, it helped them by letting the public know that material in which they might be interested existed. Did Google go too far by displaying too much of the content? I think that they did, but the only way to know that for sure is to have a judge rule on the case.

Personally, I like the compromise Google and the rightsholders agreed up. If the book is still in print then they use an "opt in" stategy. If the book is out of print then they use an "opt out" strategy.

Even better would be to revise the copyright law. One suggestion I liked (I think I saw it on this site somewhere) was to have an initial short copyright, ten years or so, and just like now the copyright doesn't cost the rights-holder anything. At the end of the ten years the rights-holder would have to pay a fee to extend the copyright another 10 years. The fee would start out low and then get larger each time the copyright was extended (let's say $100 for first extension to $1 million for tenth extension). This would allow authors and publishers to profit from their creativity and investments. It would also allow huge corporations to protect their investments. Lastly, it would protect the publics right to their intellectual heritage.

Without a reasonable copyright law I'm inclined to support the Robin Hoods and the poachers hunting in the King's forests.

It is also my understanding that Google's position was that they were within "fair use" limitations of the copyright law.

Yes, that was their position. The copyright holders disagreed.

Scanning all those books and placing "portions" on the web did not hurt the rights holders.

The rights holders disagreed, and won a substantial settlement.

In fact, it helped them by letting the public know that material in which they might be interested existed.
The authors and publishers decide how to distribute their works. That's what "copyright" means.

Personally, I like the compromise Google and the rightsholders agreed up. If the book is still in print then they use an "opt in" stategy. If the book is out of print then they use an "opt out" strategy.

It wasn't a compromise. It was a legal settlement brought about by lawsuits due to Google's massive copyright infringement.

Even better would be to revise the copyright law. Agreed. Speak to your legislator.

Speaking as an author whose book is available to "preview" at Google Books...I'm wondering how I can opt in. ;) Having looked over the preview, I was okay with it. It revealed just enough to give a taste and hopefully encouraged people to buy it (or not buy it if they wouldn't like it, and then complain about it in online reviews because it's not scholarly enough or they don't get the humor). Sort of like the "read inside" function at Amazon.

Clearly I need to read up on the settlement.

Maggie: follow the links to the Authors Guild page, referenced in the first post. It's a good settlement, I think, overall, and I applaud the Authors Guild and the other publishers for fighting Google and enforcing author compensation.

Harvard thinks the agreement's terms are too restrictive.
http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/11/02/harvard-rejects-google-scanning-settlement/

Thank,s igorsk. That's interesting. Of course, HUL is welcome to pursue their own digital library and separate agreement with authors and publishers. No one has to participate in the "google settlement", and of course the Authors Guild has an ongoing role in ensuring author rights.

Google's model is to present the world with a "fait accompli" in terms of content acquisition and access, and if you don't like it, well, you're welcome to sue. Sometimes this fait accompli, such as online web search, is so useful that most turn a blind eye, and only a rabidly ridiculous minority cries foul. We'll see what happens in terms of literature and other media. The YouTube lawsuits haven't yet been settled.

It's very interesting to watch, and see how digital rights and creator compensation evolves. I think it is very important, though, to not allow one company to dictate to us how we store, distribute, and monetize artistic content.

Having worked in a campus library for a year and in public libraries for four years, I've become quite familiar with eResources like journal articles and online newspaper archives. I teach students how to use Google Scholar all the time to access licensed journal articles, and recently have begun teaching them how to use Google Books to find out whether a particular book that they're considering getting via interlibrary loan will help them in their research.

Many people don't know that their local public and university libraries have licensed access to newspaper articles, magazine articles, journals, etc. and all they would need to do is obtain a public library card (usually free) or get a community borrower's card from the university in order to get access to what the libraries are licensing for them anyway. (Our local university offers community borrower cards for $25 per year.)

As I understand it, one consequence of the settlement is that Google will be able to work directly with libraries to license the full content of scanned books to their card holders. This would work similarly to licensed use of journal articles, where there is an authentication step, but otherwise no cost to the individual reader.

There are all kinds of ways Google can (and undoubtedly will) monetize this, but I hope that with Google turning up Books results in regular search results, and with the Google Books preview screen showing how someone can get the full book (either physically or virtually) from their local libraries, people will become more aware of what's already available to them for free or very low cost -- with the licensing being paid for en masse by libraries.

jrd

It also helps if you avoid hyperbole and characterizing the opposing viewpoint as illiterate ranting.

Yeah... sorry. I do that. It's a character flaw. ;-)

my point of view here though is that neither side is less guilty / more virtuous than the other, and the ultimate result of google's actions are significantly more beneficial to society as a whole than anything else.

If Google's actions are more beneficial to society, how are they not more virtuous? Because they hoped to profit from it (you said Google's "motivations were surely not noble or altruistic"--I would argue atruism doesn't truly exist and nobel actions may include people looking for a profit)? I don't get the demonizing of capitalist intentions. Why is so bad to better your business (and employees as a result, I might add) as well as society?

Yeah... sorry. I do that. It's a character flaw. ;-)



If Google's actions are more beneficial to society, how are they not more virtuous? Because they hoped to profit from it (you said Google's "motivations were surely not noble or altruistic"--I would argue atruism doesn't truly exist and nobel actions may include people looking for a profit)? I don't get the demonizing of capitalist intentions. Why is so bad to better your business (and employees as a result, I might add) as well as society?

Because it was illegal. Corporations acting in defiance of law because they are big and powerful enough to do so - I see nothing noble in that, unless we're using "nobility" in an historical sense.

Taylor514ce,

You seem to be confusing legal settlement with legal judgment. A judge did not rule against Google after hearing the case. Instead, Google decided to settle the case before arguing it in front of a judge and waiting for him to make a ruling.

Agreeing to a settlement does not automatically mean that what Google did was illegal. Google may be within "fair use," but then again they might not be within “fair use.” Google may have decided it was not worth risking a far larger fine to find out.

Providing the public with portions of a book as a means to entice people to buy the book may in fact fall within the legal definition of "fair use." However, we will never know because a judge never made a ruling.

When considering "fair use" claims judges consider four factors:

1. the purpose and character of your use (is it transformative?)
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market

Google's purpose was not to give away other people's work. It was to allow people to enter in search terms and then return a list of books that matched those search terms. The individual could then read portions of the book to see if it provided the information for which they were looking. This is definitely transformative, because Google is adding value to the copyrighted work. So I believe the first factor falls within the "fair use" provision.

The second factor allows more material to be used from books like biographies than it does from books such as novels or plays. The theory is "dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, so you have more leeway to copy from factual works." Google was displaying portions of all kinds of work, and not just biographies. However, they were doing so in a manner that displayed information and not entertainment. So this factor might also be seen in Google's favor.

The third factor allows portions of a work to be used, but can not include the heart of the work. Google was only displaying portions of works under copyright and not the entire works. Did Google display too much of the work? Only a judge can decide. (As I said earlier though, I think they might have, which may be why they settled.)

The forth factor is also definitely in Google’s favor. What effect did Google have on the potential market? They would have stimulated book sales. I personally bought a couple of books after reading portions of books on Google that I hadn't even known existed until I did a search on Google Books.

The bottom line is that we will now never know if Google was within "fair use" provisions or not, and that a legal settlement does not mean that Google was doing anything illegal.

Taylor514ce,

You seem to be confusing legal settlement with legal judgment. A judge did not rule against Google after hearing the case. Instead, Google decided to settle the case before arguing it in front of a judge and waiting for him to make a ruling.

Quite the opposite. Please carefully re-read my posts, if you choose. I am very cognizant that Google avoided judgment by means of this settlement. Make of that what you will. My opinion is that, knowing that they faced an adverse judgment, and not wanting to allow a precedent that undermines their entire business model, they chose instead to settle.

I've carefully read your posts, and it boils down to "we'll never know". Whatever you or I think about Google's actions and the impact on compensation and author's rights, it's very clear how the Authors Guild, publishers, and by extension authors, felt about it.

And, as long as Google can simply buy their way out of legal judgment, arguing the legality of their actions is moot.

I suppose we can boil both of our arguments down. Yours seem to be "Google is no good guy and should be condemned for violating copyright laws." Mine is that "Google may or may not have violated copyright law, but even if they did it was not the type of violation I would condemn them over."

I doubt I will change your mind, and I'm pretty sure you’re not going to change mine. However, I will say that you do a skillful job of arguing your point of view.

My position is: Google is a corporate entity beholden to shareholders, with a dodgy record on privacy and copyright issues. They ride roughshod over copyright and compensation rights, and only make changes when challenged, said changes usually in the form of "throw money at people to stay a step away from the law".

This is not a company I trust to shape the digital content landscape.

Here is an article that appeared in today's Washington Post regarding the Google settlement. The crux of the article is that Google's settlement sets them up to have a monopoly in book search services. Very few other companies will have the resources to compete with Google's deep pockets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110201721.html

Yeah, well, no one else was even trying to provide book searching like this. Not the publishers, not any of the other search etc. companies, not Amazon, not any governments. So I'm not going to cry too hard over the "competitive advantage" Google has allegedly gained in this settlement when as far as I can see, no one wanted to compete with them.

Actually, Microsoft was trying it too, but they went for opt-in instead of opt-out. Maybe that's why they couldn't compete with Google.

Actually, Microsoft was trying it too, but they went for opt-in instead of opt-out. Maybe that's why they couldn't compete with Google.

That's exactly why they couldn't compete. I won't waste time debating the legality of what Google did, I'll just say that I believe they chose the only course that had a realistic chance of success.

If your aim is to digitise all book content and make it searchable there is no point setting it up as an opt-in system, and there is no point at all trying to negotiate with rights holders directly for access to the content they hold under lock and key. Too many would refuse to participate or demand unreasonable royalties.

No, the only way to succeed in such a project is to go ahead and do it and then, afterwards, dictate the licensing terms to the rights-holders, with the force of an almost unlimited budget for legal defence backing you up.

It may seem like foul play to the rights holders but tough! Had they been willing to keep to the original spirit of copyright (by allowing works to fall into the public domain within a reasonable time frame) then such drastic measures would not have been necessary. They broke the contract first, to their benefit and to the detriment of the public. Google has broken the contract again, only this time it is the public that stands to benefit and the rights holders that lose out.

Yeah, well, no one else was even trying to provide book searching like this. Not the publishers, not any of the other search etc. companies, not Amazon, not any governments. So I'm not going to cry too hard over the "competitive advantage" Google has allegedly gained in this settlement when as far as I can see, no one wanted to compete with them.
Er... Well, there was Project Gutenberg and Distributed Proofreaders (admittedly only for out-of-copyright books -- they don't have a legal budget!). The "Million Book project" kicked off by CMU's own Dr. Raj Reddy. A Microsoft effort whose name I forget. Some smaller efforts through some European national libraries (details are too hazy for me to remember -- damn these senior moments!).

Xenophon
(at Carnegie Mellon University "CMU")

Er... Well, there was Project Gutenberg and Distributed Proofreaders (admittedly only for out-of-copyright books -- they don't have a legal budget!). The "Million Book project" kicked off by CMU's own Dr. Raj Reddy. A Microsoft effort whose name I forget. Some smaller efforts through some European national libraries (details are too hazy for me to remember -- damn these senior moments!).

Xenophon
(at Carnegie Mellon University "CMU")
Project Gutenberg and Distributed Proofreaders aren't comparable, as they aren't really book search efforts. PG seeks to create electronic copies of works in the public domain, originally in plain text and increasingly in HTML fiormats, and Distributed Proofreaders seeks to support the effort by proofing texts of works in progress. (Some of the earlier PG contributions of classics before DP came about are fairly dire in terms of quality. Ask HarryT about the state of the Dickens offerings...)

Once they are up on PG, they *become* searchable, but that's a fringe benefit.
______
Dennis

Because it was illegal. Corporations acting in defiance of law because they are big and powerful enough to do so - I see nothing noble in that, unless we're using "nobility" in an historical sense.

I'm arguing morally. I don't consider morality and legality to be the same thing and find that laws these days rarely represent what I consider to be moral.

sorry, didn't read any post except for the other thread that announced that google publishes "out of print" books.
There are a number of works from Paul F. Wilson that I'd like to read and that are, apparently, "out of print". Will I be able to read those ?

Quite the opposite. Please carefully re-read my posts, if you choose. I am very cognizant that Google avoided judgment by means of this settlement. Make of that what you will. My opinion is that, knowing that they faced an adverse judgment, and not wanting to allow a precedent that undermines their entire business model, they chose instead to settle.

I've carefully read your posts, and it boils down to "we'll never know". Whatever you or I think about Google's actions and the impact on compensation and author's rights, it's very clear how the Authors Guild, publishers, and by extension authors, felt about it.

And, as long as Google can simply buy their way out of legal judgment, arguing the legality of their actions is moot.


Sorry for jumping into this thread so late. That being said, I think it is important to remember that both sides have to agree to a settlement. Considering the stakes involved, I expect both sides settled because neither side wanted to take the chance that the settlement would go against them. Ultimately, I suspect that the Authors Guild recognized that a protracted fight on their part could not only go against them in the courts but could go against them in the court of public opinion (and maybe also in the court of authors whose works are out of print). Being that Google was not offering full books up on the internet, but only portions there of, this was definitely an area that fell into the legitimate realm of fair use. How the court might have decided would have ended up secondary to the fact that the public has been increasingly seeing media providers as being bullies.

One other thought... I would be very careful about claiming that the Authors Guild represented the authors. Certainly their position represents that of some authors, but it may not even represent the positions of all the authors who are members. Certainly there are some authors (for example ones who are taking advantage of the Creative Commons License) who believe that books should be more available than current copyright laws mandate.

One last thought. Was Google on shaky ground legally? I think the answer is an absolute yes. However, it was not clearly violating the law. The basic problem with fair use is that it essentially requires testing, more or less continually, to establish what constitutes fair use and what does not. Essentially it is the ultimate in "Better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission". So long as Google was not clearly violating copyright, it was up to the Authors Guild and the Publishers to decide they wanted to pursue the issue and for the courts to decide on whether or not it was legal. Google and the Authors guild both blinked so the question is still open legally.

--
Bill

Google was only offering "portions" online. Thus those who use those portions are within fair use. But Google themselves scanned entire books, for their own commercial purposes, some of which we know. But Google is in the content monetization business. Their act of scanning entire books was the copyright violation, not Google users' browsing portions thereof.

The rest of your post is well-reasoned and appreciated.

Google was only offering "portions" online. Thus those who use those portions are within fair use. But Google themselves scanned entire books, for their own commercial purposes, some of which we know. But Google is in the content monetization business. Their act of scanning entire books was the copyright violation, not Google users' browsing portions thereof.

The rest of your post is well-reasoned and appreciated.

I am not sure that scanning an entire book per say is a copyright violation. Certainly content shifting for personal use is perfectly legal; i.e. if I scanned a paper book and only used it myself, I am certainly engaged in a fair use of the book (in the same way that ripping a CD into mp3 files is fair use).

Likewise, the profit motive does not, in itself, make the action a violation of copyright. If I write a book review and quote portions of said book in my review, even if I am being paid for my review, I am not violating fair use.

Ultimately, I am arguing here that neither position is correct or incorrect. Fair Use is akin to the Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics (where a particle can be treated as being in two places at once until you measure it); you can't be sure whether a use constitutes fair use until it has been tested by the courts. Since Google was the first company to be sued for such a specific practice, we have no rock hard legal case law to judge the likely outcome of the case.

The other thing we need to keep in mind here is that purpose of copyright is to serve public good, not the good of the content providers. Now, that does not mean that the authors do not benefit from copyright; they certainly do. However, the benefit to the authors is the method not the goal. My personal feeling on this is that fair use should be allowed up until the point that it can be shown that an author or their publisher is actually harmed by the use, or actually, until the "harm" can be shown to be great enough to serve as a disincentive to create. Therefore, if someone makes a copyrighted work, that they do not have any rights to, available for free download (or for pay) on the internet, they are clearly violating copyright law since those who download the work now lack the incentive to purchase a legitimate copy. On the flip side, I am not sure any harm was done to publishers or authors by Google's actions.

Ultimately, the proper place for all works is in the public domain; the only real question is how much, and for how long should the authors of said works benefit. (A number of publishers can do manage to benefit from publishing Public Domain works so their needs are of secondary importance).

--
Bill

The other thing we need to keep in mind here is that purpose of copyright is to serve public good, not the good of the content providers. Now, that does not mean that the authors do not benefit from copyright; they certainly do. However, the benefit to the authors is the method not the goal.

(...)

Ultimately, the proper place for all works is in the public domain; the only real question is how much, and for how long should the authors of said works benefit.

i felt these points were important enough to repeat them. they seem to be largely forgotten these days, sadly.

I am not sure that scanning an entire book per say is a copyright violation. Certainly content shifting for personal use is perfectly legal; i.e. if I scanned a paper book and only used it myself, I am certainly engaged in a fair use of the book (in the same way that ripping a CD into mp3 files is fair use).


The trouble is right in the name. If you make a copy without the permission of the copy-right holder, you are violating the law. With the exception of fair use. But Google did not own these books, so I don't see how it could be fair use.

I really like this agreement and wish the authors, publishers and Google had tried to work out a deal first. There may be some merit to the idea that this was the only way, but I am not convinced of that.

The trouble is right in the name. If you make a copy without the permission of the copy-right holder, you are violating the law. With the exception of fair use. But Google did not own these books, so I don't see how it could be fair use.


Ah, but what are the limits of fair use. That is the ultimate question here. Fair use, is by definition a legally murky area. If making a copy is integral to a fair use activity, then making the copy itself must be fair use. Now most of us seem to believe that the clients of Google who are reading parts of books online are in fact engaging in fair use; likewise, if Google was sharing hard copy versions that they had legally bought, it would also be an example of fair use. Therefore really, the only question is whether sharing parts of soft copy of books violates fair use?

My own personal feeling is that it does not. At the very least, it is hard to argue that sharing part of a work actually hurts the author of said work; at least, it doesn't hurt them any more than the ability to browse through a book in a bookstore does.


I really like this agreement and wish the authors, publishers and Google had tried to work out a deal first. There may be some merit to the idea that this was the only way, but I am not convinced of that.

With respect, the way the media companies have been slow to adapt to the internet (and book publishers most of all), if we waited for them to agree, we wouldn't have seen anything like this in the next ten years. At which point, everyone would be getting their e-books on darknet.

--
Bill

Late as usual. But I'm weighing in on the side of greed here. Out of print works are not likely to be converted into ebook format because well, they're out of print, the publishers don't want to go to the trouble, and a myriad of other reasons. For those of us who plan on shifting our entire library collections to ebook format, the Google settlement news is wonderful. Regardless of whether or not you happen to believe that investing in ebooks for a durable personal library is practical, some of us do, and are making efforts to do so. That being said, assuming the Google settlement shakes out as I suspect, and out of print works are made available for sale by download eventually, this is excellent news for a book horder like me. I look at it like this. If I can get the books for my collection by legal means, I don't really care how moral the company is that is supplying that means. Sorry, but that's the way I feel.
I also didn't stop listening to the Dixie Chicks when they criticized (then) Pres. Bush.
I didn't agree with them, but it didn't affect my enjoyment of their music.

As it's possible that some of those out-of-print books would be completely lost to the world, not many sold, every copy somehow destroyed before the copyright period is over, I'm all for Google's initiative.

Imo, many of them were already "lost to the world" because there are so few copies they were locked away in a library somewhere. They only way to see them previous to Google Books scanning them was to physically go to the place where the library was and (try to) get permission to see them.

Yes, there are many scholars, researchers, etc., who need physical access to a book - those who are studying a particular person and hope to glean information about that person from his personal library books, for instance, or those who are studying the history of the book itself - but there are many of us who just want the book's content and Google Books has enabled that. Makes this writer very happy.

Some of their restrictions get annoying when I'm so close, though. I recently couldn't access a book published in 1924. I would have thought that would have been in the public domain. I ended up buying it through a used book seller (via used.addall.com).

Frankly, imo, used book sellers are going to be hurt by Google Books and I do regret that. I will add that many of the books I'm so happy to now have access to were books that were either never available on the open market, or if they occasionally appeared were so expensive that few (including me!) could afford them. OOP books will still have a market, I think, though a reduced one. Not everyone will want to purchase a PDF through GB (especially when some scans are unreliable, at best).

this case with google reminds me of something. a few years ago, it was illegal to use others' photographs because they were privately owned. then a case went through that made it perfectly legal to put up thumbs of others' photographs without violating their copyright. i believe the thumb size was not originally specified, but in any event, some might large "thumbs" seem to have fallen within that law. i personally thought that was pretty messed up. i wouldn't want the photos i shoot to be used by anyone, but by this law they are as long as they're not too big.

Quite the opposite. Please carefully re-read my posts, if you choose. I am very cognizant that Google avoided judgment by means of this settlement. Make of that what you will. My opinion is that, knowing that they faced an adverse judgment, and not wanting to allow a precedent that undermines their entire business model, they chose instead to settle.

i work with a company that makes millions per month. they recently settled a suit from the ftc NOT because they thought they would lose but because they felt it would cost them more and be much more disruptive to their business if they fought the suit for years in court. i'd guess they were right because another company fought it and won - and was on their way to doing so when the other company's settlement was reached - but the second company also ended up going out of business as a result of years in hearings, laywers' offices and court.

And, as long as Google can simply buy their way out of legal judgment, arguing the legality of their actions is moot.

google is FAR from the only company to come to a settlement, or "buy" their way out of legal judgement, and while it tends to make people assume that the large companies are the bad guys, that isn't always the case. in fact, in many of those cases, the large company might have won - or at least not lost fully enough to satisfy all.

Ah, but what are the limits of fair use. That is the ultimate question here. Fair use, is by definition a legally murky area. If making a copy is integral to a fair use activity, then making the copy itself must be fair use. Now most of us seem to believe that the clients of Google who are reading parts of books online are in fact engaging in fair use; likewise, if Google was sharing hard copy versions that they had legally bought, it would also be an example of fair use. Therefore really, the only question is whether sharing parts of soft copy of books violates fair use?

I think it's great what Google is doing. And I think you're right when it comes to excerpts of works. They have a long history of being considered fine for fair use. I do, however, doubt that it would be legal to download a book from their service without some kind of licensing in place first. From what I can tell, it wouldn't be covered under fair use.

If Google makes a copyrighted book available for free, without licensing it first (and providing fair compensation to the authors for each download), how is that different from what got The Pirate bay and Napster in hot water?