Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrigan
And I am being serious - I simply do not get it. Why is someone's desire to read a book more important than then the creators of the books to decide how (or how not) to make it available?
|
As pointed out, the right to control (published) books is only owned for a limited time. Right now, that time is insanely long, to such an extent that most books will not be interesting or relevant by the time they reach the public domain. However, they're still only held in trust for the public; it's not the author's right to decide indefinitely how to use them.
In the case of orphaned works, the wishes of the creator don't come into play. The creator's not available to ask whether or not s/he would like the book distributed. The settlement posits that since the public eventually has the right to free use of that content, and there's nobody to ask for limited use of it now, it's acceptable for someone to make it available now, with the caveat that it'll be removed or renegotiated if someone with a legal claim comes forward. (The fact that only Google is getting the right to make it available, is one of the points of contention.)
In the case of out-of-print books, in many situations, the author and possibly the publisher would like the book distributed, but don't believe the return on doing so justifies the effort.
They'd also like the right to negotiate the payments they'll receive, and the markets that will have access--and lack of those details is a good part of what the upset over the Google settlement is about. But very, very few authors, and pretty much no publishers, would rather that books vanished away from the public view entirely.
And--in the long run--authors & publishers don't have the right to remove the content from the public. They have the right to restrict access to it for a limited time. The purpose of that restriction (in the US) is to encourage them & other creators to make more content.
If the restriction is working the other way--is preventing other creators from remixing and transforming existing works, while allowing published authors (or more likely, their publishers) to reap financial benefits for extended periods without producing anything new--then laws & rulings that challenge those restrictions are potentially a good way around the problems of extended copyright.