[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

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).



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.



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.




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" ?

As Google pointed out, this is a non-exclusive deal. The same deal can be made by other companies. That doesn't sound like a monopoly to me. The main purpose of the Google was to digitize the out-of print works. The whole rationale of Google's project was to make available (and preserve) out-of-print works. If the US government hadn't been lobbied by Hollywood to prevent anything further from falling into the public domain in 1976, it would be a moot point. 56 years and then scan away. Even cheap paperbacks last that long (usually). But this problem is a direct result of Hollywood's successful lobbying, 56 years has become up to 140+ years, with the only guarantee is that in another 5-8 years, Hollywood will try to stretch it further. (We can free the slaves, but we'll never free Gone With The Wind)

Google's answer is a bad answer. Only the current situation is a worse one...

RSE