Quote:
Originally Posted by reader22
It's not just orphan works that were going to be digitized. It is all works. Google came up with a deal with the Authors Guild et al who took it upon themselves to negotiate an opt out instead of an opt in for all authors - whether they were a member of the guild or not. Why should an author who holds the copyright to something have to opt out? If you hold the copyright to something and someone uses it without your permission isn't that infringement? Also there was some talk about how if you hadn't filed a copyright form with the US copyright office - google would scan it anyway whether you opted out or not. It's not just MS etc who are against Google's digitization - a lot of authors, agents, and publishers are as well. If google wants to digitize books fine but they should be required to negotiate individually with each and every single copyright holder.
|
The monopoly of copyright is a thoroughly artificial construct granted by law--no different than the legally arrived at deal for the opt-out as opposed to opt-in.
I have not the tiniest regard for an artist that wishes to use that monopoly to minimize the chances of his/her work being preserved for future generations... but Google does, allowing such individuals to opt out. Seems like a perfectly reasonable arrangement to me... I just wish there was more governmental (international and/or UN) involvement in terms of delineating what Google's responsibilities, rights, and lack of rights are with regards to the work.
- Ahi