[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I believe zelda's point was about the spirit of the original purposes for copyright law, not what it has evolved in to. Under the original spirit of copyright law, most of the out-of-print titles that Google is interested in would have already been in the public domain anyway.

I am aware of Zelda's point. I happen to disagree with that rather narrow and historically isolated characterization (e.g. the Statute of Anne in 1710 clearly references commercial interests of authors and controls over publication), but in this particular instance I'm not really debating it. My point is that a book can go out of print fairly quickly, and that unless there is legislation to modify the existing laws, copyright protection does not and should not expire because the book goes out of print. I expect there are a lot of living authors who would not agree that any book that goes out of print 10 years after publication should automatically go into the public domain.

Also, there may be a great deal of opportunities for books currently out of print -- hence Google's interest in this matter. For example, a great deal of recorded music was out of print, and became commercially viable with re-releases in a new format (CD).

Originally Posted by ahi

One cannot help but wonder why authors aren't gleeful that their often utterly insignificant little books will get a wider audience and their tiny paycheques are likely to grow (by however small an amount).

Well, as long as you don't have a condescending attitude towards the content in question...

For non-orphaned works, apparently the rights holder(s) get a one-time payment of $60; after that, the Registry gets 63% of the revenues, and distributes an as-yet undetermined percentage to the rights holder (as the Registry will have its own overhead costs). You get no control over usage, Google gets indefinite usage right, and there is no formal structure to negotiate different rates or usages. If I understand the settlement correctly, you can pull your books -- but only before April 5, 2011. According to one blogger, you can even get a better deal via Google Books Partner Program than via the Settlement. Some authors are apparently satisfied with this, others are not.

The more serious problem is unless there is a legislative change, the arrangement should be opt-in, not opt-out, with the possible exception of orphaned works; and that Google may be settling its way to a monopolistic advantage.

Originally Posted by ahi

Like I said: I hope both Google and Microsoft fails. What they are trying to do is a job for the Government.

Maybe, maybe not. The government still doesn't have the right to violate existing copyright protections in this manner, unless they change the laws. You also have a lot of privacy and possible censorship issues. For example, if any of those out-of-print books have material that offends a constituency (e.g. a book from the 1930s that promotes racism; or books containing material that might be regarded as prurient) you'll have a huge outcry, an impulse to censor the material, and possible use for all kinds of investigations.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What you are seeing is the endgame of corporate copyright control. Google decided they couldn't out-bri - excuse me, out-lobby Hollywood, to restore some sanity to the copyright. So they are doing what so many others have done over the last 60 years, attempt to achieve in the courts what they couldn't achieve in the legislature.

Well, that's an exceptionally charitable view, especially since Google has never indicated that they want anyone to overturn copyright laws, and stridently defends its own intellectual property.

Besides, Google is a corporation and is trying to manipulate and control access to content on its own terms. How is this not another example of "corporate copyright control" ?