Authors Guild and Google reach settlement: Millions of scanned books to be available.

[Taylor514ce]

Ok. But it isn't "Google's Registry". To clarify, the Book Rights Registry was forced upon Google in recognition that authors HAVE rights to their own works, a position Google side-stepped, in this case, by agreeing to this settlement.

[zelda_pinwheel]

ok. THE Registry.

(and to further clarify my point of view, i agree with you that authors have rights to their works, and also that they deserve to be compensated for them. however copyright law in its current form goes so far beyond those basic tenets that it nearly occults them completely, in the process completely negating the other half of the equation, the public domain, or the shared collective stock of our culture, which is just as important as authors' rights. that is why i think it needs to be reformed, not because i think authors have no rights.)

[Taylor514ce]

And to further clarify mine, Google went the other extreme, treating ALL books as if they were ALL in the public domain, without paying anyone a cent. What this agreement also provides is millions in settlement fees to those authors who's work was stolen infringed upon.

And to further further clarify my position, it's right beside you, baby. As if there's much point in pretending otherwise these days!

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

One bit not mentioned here: as part of the deal, Google is contributing $125 million to the creation of a Book Rights Repository.

Actually...not exactly, apparently. I was talking last night to someone who works in the copyrights clearance business, and he said that the settlement document was so complex that all the reporters got it wrong. According to him, the $125M is to be divided into four pots: the first two pots going to the lawyers of the publishers and of the Authors Guild. The rest is to be divided between creating that rights repository and compensating publishers and authors whose copyrights have (arguably) been violated.

That's the story as I understand it.

I'm just starting to read this thread, so sorry if someone has already pointed this out.

[Jusin]

Beside author's compensation, If all books are available. People will generally tend to get lazy to read books. But preview will be good source for someone to choose.

[Daithi]

It is also my understanding that Google's position was that they were within "fair use" limitations of the copyright law. Scanning all those books and placing "portions" on the web did not hurt the rights holders. In fact, it helped them by letting the public know that material in which they might be interested existed. Did Google go too far by displaying too much of the content? I think that they did, but the only way to know that for sure is to have a judge rule on the case.

Personally, I like the compromise Google and the rightsholders agreed up. If the book is still in print then they use an "opt in" stategy. If the book is out of print then they use an "opt out" strategy.

Even better would be to revise the copyright law. One suggestion I liked (I think I saw it on this site somewhere) was to have an initial short copyright, ten years or so, and just like now the copyright doesn't cost the rights-holder anything. At the end of the ten years the rights-holder would have to pay a fee to extend the copyright another 10 years. The fee would start out low and then get larger each time the copyright was extended (let's say $100 for first extension to $1 million for tenth extension). This would allow authors and publishers to profit from their creativity and investments. It would also allow huge corporations to protect their investments. Lastly, it would protect the publics right to their intellectual heritage.

Without a reasonable copyright law I'm inclined to support the Robin Hoods and the poachers hunting in the King's forests.

[Taylor514ce]

Originally Posted by Daithi

It is also my understanding that Google's position was that they were within "fair use" limitations of the copyright law.

Yes, that was their position. The copyright holders disagreed.

Originally Posted by Daithi

Scanning all those books and placing "portions" on the web did not hurt the rights holders.

The rights holders disagreed, and won a substantial settlement.

Originally Posted by Daithi

In fact, it helped them by letting the public know that material in which they might be interested existed.

The authors and publishers decide how to distribute their works. That's what "copyright" means.

Originally Posted by Daithi

Personally, I like the compromise Google and the rightsholders agreed up. If the book is still in print then they use an "opt in" stategy. If the book is out of print then they use an "opt out" strategy.

It wasn't a compromise. It was a legal settlement brought about by lawsuits due to Google's massive copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by Daithi

Even better would be to revise the copyright law.

Agreed. Speak to your legislator.

[MaggieScratch]

Speaking as an author whose book is available to "preview" at Google Books...I'm wondering how I can opt in. Having looked over the preview, I was okay with it. It revealed just enough to give a taste and hopefully encouraged people to buy it (or not buy it if they wouldn't like it, and then complain about it in online reviews because it's not scholarly enough or they don't get the humor). Sort of like the "read inside" function at Amazon.

Clearly I need to read up on the settlement.

[Taylor514ce]

Maggie: follow the links to the Authors Guild page, referenced in the first post. It's a good settlement, I think, overall, and I applaud the Authors Guild and the other publishers for fighting Google and enforcing author compensation.

[igorsk]

Harvard thinks the agreement's terms are too restrictive.
http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/11...ng-settlement/

[Taylor514ce]

Thank,s igorsk. That's interesting. Of course, HUL is welcome to pursue their own digital library and separate agreement with authors and publishers. No one has to participate in the "google settlement", and of course the Authors Guild has an ongoing role in ensuring author rights.

Google's model is to present the world with a "fait accompli" in terms of content acquisition and access, and if you don't like it, well, you're welcome to sue. Sometimes this fait accompli, such as online web search, is so useful that most turn a blind eye, and only a rabidly ridiculous minority cries foul. We'll see what happens in terms of literature and other media. The YouTube lawsuits haven't yet been settled.

It's very interesting to watch, and see how digital rights and creator compensation evolves. I think it is very important, though, to not allow one company to dictate to us how we store, distribute, and monetize artistic content.

[jrdixey]

Having worked in a campus library for a year and in public libraries for four years, I've become quite familiar with eResources like journal articles and online newspaper archives. I teach students how to use Google Scholar all the time to access licensed journal articles, and recently have begun teaching them how to use Google Books to find out whether a particular book that they're considering getting via interlibrary loan will help them in their research.

Many people don't know that their local public and university libraries have licensed access to newspaper articles, magazine articles, journals, etc. and all they would need to do is obtain a public library card (usually free) or get a community borrower's card from the university in order to get access to what the libraries are licensing for them anyway. (Our local university offers community borrower cards for $25 per year.)

As I understand it, one consequence of the settlement is that Google will be able to work directly with libraries to license the full content of scanned books to their card holders. This would work similarly to licensed use of journal articles, where there is an authentication step, but otherwise no cost to the individual reader.

There are all kinds of ways Google can (and undoubtedly will) monetize this, but I hope that with Google turning up Books results in regular search results, and with the Google Books preview screen showing how someone can get the full book (either physically or virtually) from their local libraries, people will become more aware of what's already available to them for free or very low cost -- with the licensing being paid for en masse by libraries.

jrd

[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

It also helps if you avoid hyperbole and characterizing the opposing viewpoint as illiterate ranting.

Yeah... sorry. I do that. It's a character flaw. ;-)

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

my point of view here though is that neither side is less guilty / more virtuous than the other, and the ultimate result of google's actions are significantly more beneficial to society as a whole than anything else.

If Google's actions are more beneficial to society, how are they not more virtuous? Because they hoped to profit from it (you said Google's "motivations were surely not noble or altruistic"--I would argue atruism doesn't truly exist and nobel actions may include people looking for a profit)? I don't get the demonizing of capitalist intentions. Why is so bad to better your business (and employees as a result, I might add) as well as society?

[Taylor514ce]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

Yeah... sorry. I do that. It's a character flaw. ;-)



If Google's actions are more beneficial to society, how are they not more virtuous? Because they hoped to profit from it (you said Google's "motivations were surely not noble or altruistic"--I would argue atruism doesn't truly exist and nobel actions may include people looking for a profit)? I don't get the demonizing of capitalist intentions. Why is so bad to better your business (and employees as a result, I might add) as well as society?

Because it was illegal. Corporations acting in defiance of law because they are big and powerful enough to do so - I see nothing noble in that, unless we're using "nobility" in an historical sense.

[Daithi]

Taylor514ce,

You seem to be confusing legal settlement with legal judgment. A judge did not rule against Google after hearing the case. Instead, Google decided to settle the case before arguing it in front of a judge and waiting for him to make a ruling.

Agreeing to a settlement does not automatically mean that what Google did was illegal. Google may be within "fair use," but then again they might not be within “fair use.” Google may have decided it was not worth risking a far larger fine to find out.

Providing the public with portions of a book as a means to entice people to buy the book may in fact fall within the legal definition of "fair use." However, we will never know because a judge never made a ruling.

When considering "fair use" claims judges consider four factors:

1. the purpose and character of your use (is it transformative?)
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market

Google's purpose was not to give away other people's work. It was to allow people to enter in search terms and then return a list of books that matched those search terms. The individual could then read portions of the book to see if it provided the information for which they were looking. This is definitely transformative, because Google is adding value to the copyrighted work. So I believe the first factor falls within the "fair use" provision.

The second factor allows more material to be used from books like biographies than it does from books such as novels or plays. The theory is "dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, so you have more leeway to copy from factual works." Google was displaying portions of all kinds of work, and not just biographies. However, they were doing so in a manner that displayed information and not entertainment. So this factor might also be seen in Google's favor.

The third factor allows portions of a work to be used, but can not include the heart of the work. Google was only displaying portions of works under copyright and not the entire works. Did Google display too much of the work? Only a judge can decide. (As I said earlier though, I think they might have, which may be why they settled.)

The forth factor is also definitely in Google’s favor. What effect did Google have on the potential market? They would have stimulated book sales. I personally bought a couple of books after reading portions of books on Google that I hadn't even known existed until I did a search on Google Books.

The bottom line is that we will now never know if Google was within "fair use" provisions or not, and that a legal settlement does not mean that Google was doing anything illegal.