amazon sends a note to google books.. we hate you. - Page 2

DawnFalcon · 09-03-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Can writers opt out after it is settled?

No, You have to opt out by, well, today.

khalleron · 09-03-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, You have to opt out by, well, today.

Tomorrow, actually.

DawnFalcon · 09-03-2009, 07:34 PM

It's past midnight here.

But yes, I take your point

Sonist · 09-03-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

How does that justify copyright infringement and/or granting Google a special exemption from existing copyright law? Especially on the authority of a small special interest group like the Author's Guild?...

I have to agree with this.

The end result may, or may not be, beneficial to all of us, but this just seems whacky to me.

I suppose, Amazon can do the same thing, and have a 300-persons writers group in the wings, ready to hammer out a settlement on behalf of all of the world's scribblers....

Kali Yuga · 09-03-2009, 10:35 PM

Wow, from looking at the Settlement FAQ, you do have to opt out by September 4th. Plus even if you opt out, Google is not obliged to pull your book -- it's purely voluntary on Google's part.

Yeah, I can't get behind this. Authors and publishers need more time to decide, it ought to be an opt-in system, and opt-out should be obligatory rather than voluntary.

Hellmark · 09-04-2009, 12:41 AM

What about works created after the settlement? And jeez, deadline already? This settlement hasn't really been public knowledge for all that long. Authors should be at least given a chance to find out first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalleron

The point being, that 'done' is better than 'not done'. Google's done it - I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate. It's a prodigious effort - I think it deserves some kind of reward.

The fact is, others ARE doing it. Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, etc. Google isn't the only one, or even the first one, they are just the biggest and best known.

nekokami · 09-04-2009, 11:02 AM

Anyone here know who A. A. Milne is? You might recognize his name as the author of the "Winnie the Pooh" books. But you might not know that he was also a prolific and very popular playwright during his lifetime. And not a single one of his plays is still available now. They were protected by copyright law, even after they had fallen out of print, until eventually there were no printed copies left to scan.

I expect to see a challenge to the deadline, and possibly to the "non-orphan works" part of the settlement, but really, if a publisher can't be bothered to keep a book in print (even digitally), and the author doesn't exercise their clause to reclaim rights AND get the book back into print, why not let Google have a go?

Even if this settlement is eventually overturned, if it prompts more writers and publishers to get their books back into digital "print" so Google can't snag them, I'd say that outcome will be worthwhile. Before Google started scanning books, most publishers seemed completely indifferent to the idea of getting their backlists into digital form.

Despite what Disney seems to think, the idea of copyright was to help the public by encouraging creators with a limited-time monopoly, not to allow publishers to sit on content and trickle it out so they can charge the highest possible price for it. I really can't see how that behavior is in the public interest.

DawnFalcon · 09-04-2009, 12:03 PM

Great. That dosn't excuse the settlement.

There is absolutely no reason, for example, why it sould be exclusive to Google. Open the "Books Rights Registry", so anyone can distribute - and let authors set their own terms for each form of distribution under it (essentially, a central clearing house for anyone to find book rights). Make the opt-out apply only to works older than 20 years as well.

And so on.

Shaggy · 09-04-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Great. That dosn't excuse the settlement.

There is absolutely no reason, for example, why it sould be exclusive to Google.

I'm not sure why you think it's exclusive to Google?

Start your own company, do exactly what google did, get sued for copyright infringement, and then settle out of court.

zerospinboson · 09-04-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm not sure why you think it's exclusive to Google?

Start your own company, do exactly what google did, get sued for copyright infringement, and then settle out of court.

What I find the most problematic it how this out-of-court settlement of a C-A Lawsuit should really only apply to American authors, or works published by US-based publishers. It's pretty hard to see how non-americans gain from this, even if they can technically sign up for reimbursement/opt-out, etc.

Elfwreck · 09-04-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Works that are unknown who the owner is, can be used for a standard fee or given percentage of sales (which ever is more), with all the money being saved for the copyright owner.... If no owner is found before the copyrights expire, any money in holding for them is then turned over...

So... this money should be held in escrow for over 120 years, for the possible case of a mid-twenties author with a long life ahead of him? I think it's a bit unreasonable to arrange a business plan that way.

I also think copyright lengths are ridiculous, and it needs to move back to less than 50 years after publication. But that's an entirely different debate; the orphan works rules need to start working with copyright law as it exists now, not as it would be if it were more reasonable and useful.

Shaggy · 09-04-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

What I find the most problematic it how this out-of-court settlement of a C-A Lawsuit should really only apply to American authors, or works published by US-based publishers. It's pretty hard to see how non-americans gain from this, even if they can technically sign up for reimbursement/opt-out, etc.

What I'm a little confused about is that if you were not part of the Plaintiffs, then how does this settlement apply? A group of Plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement, and then they settled with Google. If you were not part of that original case, then why can't you, as an author, also sue Google for copyright infringement. How is somebody completely independent of the original case forced to agree with the terms of the settlement?

Shaggy · 09-04-2009, 02:09 PM

To put that a little differently:

An independent author may be included in the terms of the settlement, but I don't see at all how they are bound by them. What is stopping an independent author (who was not part of the original case) from suing Google for copyright infringement themselves?

HarryT · 09-04-2009, 02:12 PM

Lack of resources? Very often, for a private individual to sue a huge corporation is simply not feasible, no matter how "right" their case may be.

Shaggy · 09-04-2009, 02:17 PM

They could probably start another class action. The only limitation is that those who were direct parties to the settlement couldn't be included.

I think people are assuming that this settlement applies to all authors. I can't see how that is true. The talk about giving up your rights if you fail to opt-out in time is only true if you were part of the original case. Nobody else is bound by these terms.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Man! I hate self promoted books!	GlenBarrington	Writers' Corner	114	08-14-2010 02:28 PM
Amazon sends out Kindle ad disguised as a press release	Nate the great	News	12	11-30-2009 12:34 PM
I hate Amazon.	jaxx6166	Amazon Kindle	30	10-16-2009 01:07 PM
MS, Amazon, Yahoo join forces against Google Books digitization	zerospinboson	News	19	08-22-2009 02:35 AM

09-03-2009, 07:34 PM	#18
DawnFalcon Banned Posts: 2,094 Karma: 2682 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: N/A	It's past midnight here. But yes, I take your point

09-03-2009, 10:35 PM	#20
Kali Yuga Professional Contrarian Posts: 2,045 Karma: 3289631 Join Date: Mar 2009 Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie	Wow, from looking at the Settlement FAQ, you do have to opt out by September 4th. Plus even if you opt out, Google is not obliged to pull your book -- it's purely voluntary on Google's part. Yeah, I can't get behind this. Authors and publishers need more time to decide, it ought to be an opt-in system, and opt-out should be obligatory rather than voluntary.

09-04-2009, 11:02 AM	#22
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	Anyone here know who A. A. Milne is? You might recognize his name as the author of the "Winnie the Pooh" books. But you might not know that he was also a prolific and very popular playwright during his lifetime. And not a single one of his plays is still available now. They were protected by copyright law, even after they had fallen out of print, until eventually there were no printed copies left to scan. I expect to see a challenge to the deadline, and possibly to the "non-orphan works" part of the settlement, but really, if a publisher can't be bothered to keep a book in print (even digitally), and the author doesn't exercise their clause to reclaim rights AND get the book back into print, why not let Google have a go? Even if this settlement is eventually overturned, if it prompts more writers and publishers to get their books back into digital "print" so Google can't snag them, I'd say that outcome will be worthwhile. Before Google started scanning books, most publishers seemed completely indifferent to the idea of getting their backlists into digital form. Despite what Disney seems to think, the idea of copyright was to help the public by encouraging creators with a limited-time monopoly, not to allow publishers to sit on content and trickle it out so they can charge the highest possible price for it. I really can't see how that behavior is in the public interest.

09-04-2009, 12:03 PM	#23
DawnFalcon Banned Posts: 2,094 Karma: 2682 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: N/A	Great. That dosn't excuse the settlement. There is absolutely no reason, for example, why it sould be exclusive to Google. Open the "Books Rights Registry", so anyone can distribute - and let authors set their own terms for each form of distribution under it (essentially, a central clearing house for anyone to find book rights). Make the opt-out apply only to works older than 20 years as well. And so on.

09-04-2009, 02:09 PM	#28
Shaggy Wizard Posts: 4,293 Karma: 529619 Join Date: May 2007 Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG	To put that a little differently: An independent author may be included in the terms of the settlement, but I don't see at all how they are bound by them. What is stopping an independent author (who was not part of the original case) from suing Google for copyright infringement themselves?

09-04-2009, 02:12 PM	#29
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,556 Karma: 93980341 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Lack of resources? Very often, for a private individual to sue a huge corporation is simply not feasible, no matter how "right" their case may be.

09-04-2009, 02:17 PM	#30
Shaggy Wizard Posts: 4,293 Karma: 529619 Join Date: May 2007 Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG	They could probably start another class action. The only limitation is that those who were direct parties to the settlement couldn't be included. I think people are assuming that this settlement applies to all authors. I can't see how that is true. The talk about giving up your rights if you fail to opt-out in time is only true if you were part of the original case. Nobody else is bound by these terms.

Advert

Advert