Quote:
Originally Posted by khalleron
Well, that's the point, isn't it? Google has the resources and has made the effort.
|
How does that justify copyright infringement and/or granting Google a special exemption from existing copyright law? Especially on the authority of a small special interest group like the Author's Guild?
If I made the effort to make a digital copy of a bunch of 78's that were out of print, that effort would not give me the legal right to sell the digital copies without the explicit consent of the publisher -- even if I was sending payments to ASCAP or BMI.
And is this same exemption with the same exact rates granted to anyone else who runs around and scans a bunch of paper books? How would the Author's Guild react if it had been Amazon, rather than Google, who had done this?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by khalleron
the contention is about 'orphan' works, which have little to no monetary value by definition, so I'm more likely to come down on Google's side than not.
|
It's not just about "orphaned" works (i.e. where the rights holder cannot be located), it's also about works that are merely out of print but the rights holders are still available. If you don't want Google to sell your out of print book, instead of Google contacting you and asking your permission (like every other retailer/distributor is required to do), you have to know what they're planning and tell them not to do it. Otherwise you're stuck at a payment rate and distribution method that you did not choose or negotiate.
As the author Christopher Buckley said on this very topic: “Whenever I hear capitalism proclaiming noble motives, something makes me check my wallet.”