Love the title
As if the settlement wasn't getting enough undeserved hate already.
Just two points: First, "granting rights" for the first time to Google isn't granting them a monopoly. It's not a tax exemption, it's allowing them to make out-of-print works available again, a right that should be legislated, and if that ever happens Google won't have a monopoly by being first because, secondly, Google doesn't "control" the out-of-print books, they're just allowed to display and offer them as download if the author doesn't oppose it.
Of course it'd be nice to push for a change of legislature by the Congress, who unfortunately happens to be the very same chamber who extended copyright from 7 years to horizons only next generations will be (maybe) allowed to see, and because of who authors dead since 1950 won't see their works fall in the PD before 2040. If the settlement is rejected, I wouldn't count too much on a quick copyright reform..
Quote:
|
Living authors / valid rights holders of out-of-print works should opt in, preferably with the ability to decide what rights to extend to distributors, rather than opt-out
|
That's pushing for hide and seek and negociation with hundred of thousand of copyright holders.
Slowing down mass digitization of books, and making it more expensive by multiple orders of magnitude.
The opt-out fashion is more efficient, and I don't see what the holders are losing, other than rights they obviously don't care about. That's the way it should be legislated: your work has been unavailable for 1 year, then the digitizers are free to make it available again, unless you specifically opt-out in a public register.