Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
Authorization to distribute should be opt-in, not opt-out. In other words, Google should not be authorized by default. It's supposed to be the other way around, unless somebody wants to change the law such that out-of-print books are automatically authorized unless the copyright holder says otherwise. But, that's not what the law currently says.
This settlement, if allowed to go forward, would give Google a different standing on distribution rights than anyone else (unless other companies reach the same settlement).
Personally, I think the settlement goes too far (based on current copyright law). The actual plaintiffs were represented by 5 authors. Those 5 authors have basically settled with Google on behalf of every author who has ever had a book published in the US, and is giving away a default authorization. I think the membership of the class is way too broad and the settlement should not be allowed to give away those rights on an opt-out basis. That's just my opinion though. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of current copyright either.
|
I tend to agree with everything Shaggy said here.
Personally, I'd like to see copyrighted books that have gone out of print have a mechanism to become available through something like Google is proposing. However, from a legal standpoint I think this needs to be addressed through legislation and not put in place by the courts. If the courts circumvent copyright law to allow Google's proposal then I'm afraid we'll end up with something like RIAA with strange side effects like businesses not allowed to play radios. Furthermore, with courts setting the rules there will be no way to change those rules if the public doesn't like them.