Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
And if they're kicking, then they can opt-out. What's the problem?
|
The problem is that they shouldn't have to opt-out of losing controls that the law grants them. A court ruling shouldn't be able to remove those rights for all authors. Especially since the opt-out period is limited, and I don't see any obvious description for how authors 15 years from now will be informed of their opt-out rights.
Quote:
|
Agreed. But they will be available, which is more than can be said today...
|
And there's the main issue.
On the one hand, the Google settlement rides roughshod over author's rights, and has some gaping loopholes (like the fact that it doesn't just include *published* authors, but anyone who has a copyright, regardless of registration status... Google could start scanning kids' term papers and selling them to other students).
On the other... damn, there's a lot of books out of print, that a lot of people would love to make accessible, except that publishers are sitting on the rights, or the authors (or their heirs) have no idea how to make them available again.
I think the Google settlement goes too far. It doesn't just offer terms for authors whose rights they have violated (and I think it does okay in that part--offers basic compensation, and opt-out for those who want to pursue other options); it sets up terms for them to continue to violate the rights of future authors, and existing authors who aren't published in the US.
I like their goals--making out-of-print books accessible. I understand that this is likely the only way to get around the MPAA/RIAA stranglehold on copyright. But I don't think this particular solution will fly.
I hope that it spotlights the problems enough to start working on one that will.