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

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

This is a settlement. Google was forced into this because of immense pressure from the publishing industry. Google's Book project was a massive, systematic raping of copyright, and everyone knew it. Everyone seems to be praising Google for this, but this is a settlement from a copyright-infringement lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild. Praise them, instead (there was also a separate suit by the Association of American Publishers on behalf of five big publishers). Google aren't the good guys, here. They violated copyright, and are side-stepping a judgment by this settlement.

i understand your point and while this is technically true i tend to nuance my judgement with the fact that current copyright law is bloated and abusive and has completely occulted the original spirit and motivation of its creation. so i can't consider copyright law / holders to be 100% the side of good (in other words, i make a very significant disctinction here between the legality and the morality / ethicality of these actions). therefore, even if copyright was infringed to some degree, i'm not convinced this is necessarily such an undefendable thing (it might be moreso, if copyright laws were more reasonable).

also, many books which are still in copyright are also out of print and incredibly hard (or impossible) to find. this is one of the very dangerous side-effects of the current copyright law. with this in mind, google is actually safeguarding a significant portion of our collective culture for posterity, and making it far more accessible than publishers have / could.

and since the publishers are ultimately the ones who are simultaneously profiting the most from the current copyright laws and falling down on the job about making (especially obscure and therefore less profitable) copyright works available, my view is that google is actually doing them a favor to some degree, and more importantly, doing future generations of readers a favor by giving them the chance to discover books which might otherwise have been lost forever.

i do grant you that some aspects of google's actions are less justifiable, for example the original opt-out (rather than opt-in) approach for books which are still in print and still in copyright, but nonetheless *all* the parties involved (including the publishers and the authors, that is to say the plaignants in the case) recognize that the true winners in this case are the readers.

i just don't think it's quite as black and white as your post makes it seem.

[Studio717]

I do thank the Authors Guild - every year with my dues. This settlement proves their worth in my mind. Yes, I believe Google stepped over the line with in copyright and in print books. But the OOP books - those are an amazing resource that was slowly becoming inaccessible, not just to those who didn't have university library privileges, but to everyone.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I buy a lot of used OOP books. I would say a good half of those have been purged library editions, so even the libraries would not have these books available. (Those purged library editions were often the only version of a book available, as well.) So while Google did overstep (imo) with the in print books, this settlement is, through Google, providing an immeasureably valuable service by giving us back books that would have been otherwise lost.

Readers are indeed the winners with this settlement.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by cjp

The work around I've been using for some time now is to take the PDF scanned images and convert them using Adobe Pro. Although it renders a large MB file, you can then easily - and I mean easily and quickly - convert or copy into another document to an output of your choice. (Since I already used Adobe Pro extensively to generate PDF's, this was not an added expense for me.)

Yep, and that's an effective tactic for you because you already have Adobe Pro for other reasons, so it's not an additional cost.

A lot of folks who might like to do that sort of conversion won't have Adobe Pro, and might consider getting it to set the cost of entry higher than they feel like paying.
______
Dennis

[Taylor514ce]

Oh, our first fight! I can't wait for the make-up sex.

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

therefore, even if copyright was infringed to some degree...

The degree here was the highest ever by anyone in history. (Cue the Kip soundbite from Napolean Dynamite. "Like anyone could know that...") It was an intentional, systematic, corporate raiding of entire libraries. It was a private company deciding to ignore copyright for their own profit.

We may not like certain laws, laws may be wrong, but to ignore and redefine things... I'll stop before this becomes a conversation about the Bush Administration.

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

also, many books which are still in copyright are also out of print and incredibly hard (or impossible) to find. this is one of the very dangerous side-effects of the current copyright law. with this in mind, google is actually safeguarding a significant portion of our collective culture for posterity, and making it far more accessible than publishers have / could.

I agree, but Google was not being altruistic here. They saw an opportunity to grab content they thought nobody was watching. Like a lady's purse on the back of a chair, so to speak. Out of Print, Out of Mind. And they didn't do so to "safeguard" it. They are a for-profit company. Publishers and OOP works are like a company with particular goods locked away in a warehouse. Because they keep the goods out of circulation does not give another company the right to break into the warehouse and use those goods for their own profit, no matter how much you and I want the goods.

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

i do grant you that some aspects of google's actions are less justifiable, for example the original opt-out (rather than opt-in) approach for books which are still in print and still in copyright, but nonetheless *all* the parties involved (including the publishers and the authors, that is to say the plaignants in the case) recognize that the true winners in this case are the readers..

It was a land grab. They got caught, were sued, and forced to behave. In this instance. Suits about YouTube content and other media grabs are still in the works.

Originally Posted by Studio717

this settlement is, through Google...

Again, not "through Google", but through a legal settlement. Google was perfectly content to ignore the law and do whatever they wanted, until this settlement.

[Studio717]

By 'through Google' I meant that the scans of the books are being made available. The Authors Guild didn't scan the books, the publishers association didn't scan the books, Google did. Therefore, the books are being made available through Google. The settlement allows (and dis-allows) some of those scans being made available, but the scans themselves are available through Google.

That's what I was referring to (and which seems pretty clear in my original post).

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Oh, our first fight! I can't wait for the make-up sex.

are we fighting ? i think i'm just disagreeing with you.

The degree here was the highest ever by anyone in history. (Cue the Kip soundbite from Napolean Dynamite. "Like anyone could know that...") It was an intentional, systematic, corporate raiding of entire libraries. It was a private company deciding to ignore copyright for their own profit.

We may not like certain laws, laws may be wrong, but to ignore and redefine things... I'll stop before this becomes a conversation about the Bush Administration.

well, again, technically you're right ; but i just can't get that worked up about copyright laws, given how utterly, profoundly wrong and actually harmful i think the current ones are. (and although i don't in any way think or claim that google's actions had anything to do with this, i will point out that yes, sometimes when a law is truly wrong, you should deliberately ignore it, and call it civil disobedience). while i am capable of getting worked up about something on principle alone, i fear this is not one of those things, because ultimately the legal infringement that was done is not truly unethical, in my opinion, and the ultimate result is overall positive and beneficial to humanity in general, which the current copyright laws are not (on the contrary). i'm not saying the ends justify the means in every situation, just that in this particular situation, i'm not convinced either party is more righteous than the other.

I agree, but Google was not being altruistic here. They saw an opportunity to grab content they thought nobody was watching. Like a lady's purse on the back of a chair, so to speak. Out of Print, Out of Mind. And they didn't do so to "safeguard" it. They are a for-profit company. Publishers and OOP works are like a company with particular goods locked away in a warehouse. Because they keep the goods out of circulation does not give another company the right to break into the warehouse and use those goods for their own profit, no matter how much you and I want the goods.

It was a land grab. They got caught, were sued, and forced to behave. In this instance. Suits about YouTube content and other media grabs are still in the works.

well, no, not *really* like a lady's purse on the back of a chair (nice try), but let's not have the material goods vs. IP discussion *again*.

i grant you, google wasn't being altruistic (although... maybe they were also thinking of that aspect. who knows ?), they're out to make money. but so are the publishers, and copyright laws are currently just as much a "land grab" as google's scans (possibly more, in fact). you don't seem to take into account that copyright laws embody pretty much exactly the same things you fault google for, the ultimate difference being that contrary to google not only are they ethically pretty indefensible, they also disserve society's interests overall whereas google ends up actually enriching society (culturally speaking). Out of Print, Out of Mind, exactly : how many books are lost forever because they fall out of print before they fall out of copyright, and everyone forgets about them ?

i'm still not claiming google was not *legally* in the wrong ; it's just that copyright laws don't seem to me deserving of my righteous ire, and i think the google scanning project is a good thing overall, regardless of their motivations and the legality of it, whereas copyright laws need urgently to be drastically reformed (again, making a distinction between law and ethics). yes, as you say they tried to pull a fast one and got caught, and this settlement is an acknowledgement of it... but ironically it seems to me to be a sort of "pot calling the kettle black" situation. the only reason that's the case to begin with is that certain copyright holders (*cough*disney*cough*) pulled a far bigger fast one on *everybody* first, and they *did* get away with it.

[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

i'm still not claiming google was not *legally* in the wrong ; it's just that copyright laws don't seem to me deserving of my righteous ire, and i think the google scanning project is a good thing overall, regardless of their motivations and the legality of it, whereas copyright laws need urgently to be drastically reformed (again, making a distinction between law and ethics). yes, as you say they tried to pull a fast one and got caught, and this settlement is an acknowledgement of it... but ironically it seems to me to be a sort of "pot calling the kettle black" situation. the only reason that's the case to begin with is that certain copyright holders (*cough*disney*cough*) pulled a far bigger fast one on *everybody* first, and they *did* get away with it.

I agree. Copyright laws are ridiculously stringent. I do applaud Google for this effort. Ultimately, having digital copies of all these books is going to benefit society and it's more of an effort than any other group has put forward. What's with the complaint that Google was looking for profit? It's worth noting that Google Books has cost Google much more money than it's made. Even though Google was probably hoping to get to a point at which the project would generate more money than it was taking to support, I don't recall this ever being a vice in the United States. Pardon me if I don't shred any tears because Google isn't a socialist operation. If they were, it'd be a poor excuse for a business model.

OH NOES!!!! GOOGLE IS OUT TO MAKE A PROFIT!!!! VILLAINY!!!! SCANDAL!!!! END OF THE WORLD!!!!

[Taylor514ce]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

I agree. Copyright laws are ridiculously stringent. I do applaud Google for this effort. Ultimately, having digital copies of all these books is going to benefit society and it's more of an effort than any other group has put forward. What's with the complaint that Google was looking for profit? It's worth noting that Google Books has cost Google much more money than it's made. Even though Google was probably hoping to get to a point at which the project would generate more money than it was taking to support, I don't recall this ever being a vice in the United States. Pardon me if I don't shred any tears because Google isn't a socialist operation. If they were, it'd be a poor excuse for a business model.

OH NOES!!!! GOOGLE IS OUT TO MAKE A PROFIT!!!! VILLAINY!!!! SCANDAL!!!! END OF THE WORLD!!!!

I too, work to make a profit. Please pay attention to the actual objection - it makes for a more productive discussion. It also helps if you avoid hyperbole and characterizing the opposing viewpoint as illiterate ranting.

Google's business model was to make a profit by intentionally circumventing laws. While individuals may do so and plausibly claim "civil disobedience" in some instances, public companies can not. Google did not set out to act as they are now doing, they were sued into doing so by the people from whom they were stealing. Perhaps they should change their name to "Robin Hood", the way some are reacting.

[Daithi]

zelda_pinwheel,

I have to say that I am extremely impressed by how well you write and argue your points. You have the ability to disagree without being either condesending or smug (something I don't do very well). I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated reading your thoughts on this subject (I also tend to agree with your position).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Systematic raping of copyright?

Don't pay much attention. Taylor is a rabid google hater. Most of his anti-google comments get pretty ridiculous.

[Taylor514ce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Don't pay much attention. Taylor is a rabid google hater. Most of his anti-google comments get pretty ridiculous.

In what sense? How would you characterize the corporate decision to scan entire libraries in knowing violation of copyright law?

Let's also clarify cause and affect here. I'm not highlighting Google's wrongness because I'm a rabid Google-hater. I'm a Google-hater because of their consistent wrongness. The wrongness isn't even in dispute, as evidenced by their settlement of this lawsuit.

If you can be more specific in your objections, and address me directly rather than in the third person, it would make for a more productive conversation.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Google's business model was to make a profit by intentionally circumventing laws. While individuals may do so and plausibly claim "civil disobedience" in some instances, public companies can not. Google did not set out to act as they are now doing, they were sued into doing so by the people from whom they were stealing. Perhaps they should change their name to "Robin Hood", the way some are reacting.

i don't claim that google was engaging in civil disobedience ; i only mentioned that to make the point that i don't think laws should be followed blindly just because they are laws, and to explain why i am not more scandalised by google's actions in this case. (and i kind of have a soft spot for Robin Hood, you're right... but that is really beside the point). but you're confusing the issue. i know that this is falling into semantics, but copyright infringement and theft are different things, and not of equivalent gravity (to me, but also from a legal standpoint in fact, since if i've understood correctly, theft is a criminal offense whereas copyright infringement is only a civil offense in the US. correct me if i'm wrong ; i think i read that here somewhere). this is an important distinction. and again, if copyright laws were not as morally bankrupt and thoroughly unjustifiable as they are, i would be significantly more likely to defend them. 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.

Originally Posted by Daithi

zelda_pinwheel,

I have to say that I am extremely impressed by how well you write and argue your points. You have the ability to disagree without being either condesending or smug (something I don't do very well). I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated reading your thoughts on this subject (I also tend to agree with your position).

thanks for the kind words daithi i think most people would agree with me that one of the things we like most about MobileRead is the friendly ambiance, so we do our best to maintain the respect of other members that makes that possible. it's really refreshing to see how we can discuss very controversial topics here and rarely see a conversation degenerate... that is thanks to *everyone* making an effort to keep things respectful. it's one of the things i appreciate most about this site. i'm glad you appreciate that too.

of course, it's a lot easier to keep a rational and respectful tone when everyone else is respectful too.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

of course, it's a lot easier to keep a rational and respectful tone when everyone else is respectful too.

I also like it when people are respectful and objective. It can be mighty difficult at times. Well done.

(is it time for the cute kitteh pics?)

[Taylor514ce]

You're right. I equate copyright infringement, on the scale practiced by Google (complete, systematic, wholescale) as tantamount to theft, in my moral rainbow. Others do not. Be that as it may, it is still odd to applaud Google for their actions, in this specific case (Book Registry, etc.), since those were not Google's actions. Those were actions Google was forced to make because of a legal settlement.

Google chose to ignore existing laws because they stood in the way of what they wanted to do.

You may feel the laws were unjust to start with, and that Google's goals were beneficent and consistent with your own. Surely you see the slippery slope, though, don't you? That might be true in this one instance, but doesn't it set a rather dangerous precedent? I'm not comfortable with that.

I'm glad that they were caught, sued, and forced to make amends, as rabidly ridiculous as that might seem.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

You're right. I equate copyright infringement, on the scale practiced by Google (complete, systematic, wholescale) as tantamount to theft, in my moral rainbow. Others do not. Be that as it may, it is still odd to applaud Google for their actions, in this specific case (Book Registry, etc.), since those were not Google's actions. Those were actions Google was forced to make because of a legal settlement.

Google chose to ignore existing laws because they stood in the way of what they wanted to do.

You may feel the laws were unjust to start with, and that Google's goals were beneficent and consistent with your own. Surely you see the slippery slope, though, don't you? That might be true in this one instance, but doesn't it set a rather dangerous precedent? I'm not comfortable with that.

I'm glad that they were caught, sued, and forced to make amends, as rabidly ridiculous as that might seem.

you are completely right, my judgement here is thoroughly coloured by my feelings about copyright law and the greed and immorality that the current copyright law embodies ; that is why i perceive google as "fighting the good fight" despite the fact that their motivations were surely not noble or altruistic (although if it's true that they are still losing money on this project, i have to wonder just what their motivations were... perhaps they are nobler and more altruistic than we give them credit for). and that is why i don't equate copyright infringement with theft : having read quite a few of Eric Flint's editorials about copyright, its origins, and its true purpose (on the Baen site), among other things, i confess that i see current copyright law as a complete, systematic, wholesale pillaging of our cultural heritage, for the profit of a few greedy copyright holders (*cough*disney*cough*).

yes, ignoring a law because it's inconvenient to our goals can be a slippery slope and it is true that on principle, in the absolute, people should not be allowed to get away with it, and corporations even less than individuals ; so perhaps it was necessary to make google pay to set a precedent for when it's not google scanning copyright books to preserve our cultural heritage, but big oil devastating natural reserves in the name of an easy profit. i think that's the point you're trying to make, and it's a valid point.

nonetheless, as an individual, i can allow myself to make exceptions in my own mind based on extenuating circumstances or specific situations (and in fact so can a judge), and in this specific instance, i remain convinced that overall google's actions are serving a greater good (and are possibly even motivated by that good, at least partially... you never know) and are far more defendable than copyright law, in its current form. so i'm happy about what they're doing, and what it will be bringing us (and by "us" i mean us, individuals and members of global society), and i'm really glad they will be able to continue to do it, and i am thrilled that the next time i want to determine the public domain status of a particular out of print translation of an obscure novel by a hungarian author, with a little luck, i'll be able to consult google's registry (and possibly even obtain the text from google books), instead of fruitlessly exchanging emails with any number of friendly but ultimately helpless hungarian homonymic translators / officials of the copyright bureau / editors, while the novel slips that much further into obscurity, all because a few obscenely rich copyright holders wanted to get that much richer and had the money and influence to insure that they would, to the detriment of all the rest of us.