U.S. Government blasts Google

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

Ah. My apologies for the misunderstanding then!

No problem. I admit that what I was saying was confusing. I was making two (opposing) points. One based on existing law, and one based on my personal preference.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So they are doing what so many others have done over the last 60 years, attempt to achieve in the courts what they couldn't achieve in the legislature.

I think it's more than that. Even the legislature is being used for the perversion of copyright law, not in support of the public good, but rather in support of the interests of big business.

Individuals, including many authors, are getting screwed from both directions.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

Google should just cut to the chase and just replace the US goverment. I think we'll all be happier that way

They could not possibly do a worse job.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I think it's more than that. Even the legislature is being used for the perversion of copyright law, not in support of the public good, but rather in support of the interests of big business.

Individuals, including many authors, are getting screwed from both directions.

It's one big business taking advantage of the huge gap left by the greediness of another set of big businesses. On the other hand, it will make works available that should have been in the public domain anyway, if it hadn't been for the greedy reaching of the Hollywood set of big businesses in the first place.

To me, I can't get mad at anything that Google makes available that was published pre-1954, as under the copyright laws that were in place at the time they were created, they would have fallen in the public domain anyway. After 1954, that's another question....


(When dinosaurs fight, a lot of ground gets plowed for free....)

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I believe zelda's point was about the spirit of the original purposes for copyright law, not what it has evolved in to. Under the original spirit of copyright law, most of the out-of-print titles that Google is interested in would have already been in the public domain anyway.

I am aware of Zelda's point. I happen to disagree with that rather narrow and historically isolated characterization (e.g. the Statute of Anne in 1710 clearly references commercial interests of authors and controls over publication), but in this particular instance I'm not really debating it. My point is that a book can go out of print fairly quickly, and that unless there is legislation to modify the existing laws, copyright protection does not and should not expire because the book goes out of print. I expect there are a lot of living authors who would not agree that any book that goes out of print 10 years after publication should automatically go into the public domain.

Also, there may be a great deal of opportunities for books currently out of print -- hence Google's interest in this matter. For example, a great deal of recorded music was out of print, and became commercially viable with re-releases in a new format (CD).

Originally Posted by ahi

One cannot help but wonder why authors aren't gleeful that their often utterly insignificant little books will get a wider audience and their tiny paycheques are likely to grow (by however small an amount).

Well, as long as you don't have a condescending attitude towards the content in question...

For non-orphaned works, apparently the rights holder(s) get a one-time payment of $60; after that, the Registry gets 63% of the revenues, and distributes an as-yet undetermined percentage to the rights holder (as the Registry will have its own overhead costs). You get no control over usage, Google gets indefinite usage right, and there is no formal structure to negotiate different rates or usages. If I understand the settlement correctly, you can pull your books -- but only before April 5, 2011. According to one blogger, you can even get a better deal via Google Books Partner Program than via the Settlement. Some authors are apparently satisfied with this, others are not.

The more serious problem is unless there is a legislative change, the arrangement should be opt-in, not opt-out, with the possible exception of orphaned works; and that Google may be settling its way to a monopolistic advantage.

Originally Posted by ahi

Like I said: I hope both Google and Microsoft fails. What they are trying to do is a job for the Government.

Maybe, maybe not. The government still doesn't have the right to violate existing copyright protections in this manner, unless they change the laws. You also have a lot of privacy and possible censorship issues. For example, if any of those out-of-print books have material that offends a constituency (e.g. a book from the 1930s that promotes racism; or books containing material that might be regarded as prurient) you'll have a huge outcry, an impulse to censor the material, and possible use for all kinds of investigations.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What you are seeing is the endgame of corporate copyright control. Google decided they couldn't out-bri - excuse me, out-lobby Hollywood, to restore some sanity to the copyright. So they are doing what so many others have done over the last 60 years, attempt to achieve in the courts what they couldn't achieve in the legislature.

Well, that's an exceptionally charitable view, especially since Google has never indicated that they want anyone to overturn copyright laws, and stridently defends its own intellectual property.

Besides, Google is a corporation and is trying to manipulate and control access to content on its own terms. How is this not another example of "corporate copyright control" ?

[brokene60]

It's sad how Google lost their "do no evil" motto so long ago...

[ahi]

Originally Posted by brokene60

It's sad how Google lost their "do no evil" motto so long ago...

I don't know... I'm kind of looking forward to when they openly start to embrace their "Do do evil!" motto.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Well, as long as you don't have a condescending attitude towards the content in question...

I find that the people most paranoidly concerned about their "intellectual property rights" and "the least talented writers" are two groups with considerable overlap.

That is the sole reason for my condescension, and should not be taken to apply to all writers across the board.

- Ahi

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I am aware of Zelda's point. I happen to disagree with that rather narrow and historically isolated characterization (e.g. the Statute of Anne in 1710 clearly references commercial interests of authors and controls over publication), but in this particular instance I'm not really debating it. My point is that a book can go out of print fairly quickly, and that unless there is legislation to modify the existing laws, copyright protection does not and should not expire because the book goes out of print. I expect there are a lot of living authors who would not agree that any book that goes out of print 10 years after publication should automatically go into the public domain.

Also, there may be a great deal of opportunities for books currently out of print -- hence Google's interest in this matter. For example, a great deal of recorded music was out of print, and became commercially viable with re-releases in a new format (CD).



Well, as long as you don't have a condescending attitude towards the content in question...

For non-orphaned works, apparently the rights holder(s) get a one-time payment of $60; after that, the Registry gets 63% of the revenues, and distributes an as-yet undetermined percentage to the rights holder (as the Registry will have its own overhead costs). You get no control over usage, Google gets indefinite usage right, and there is no formal structure to negotiate different rates or usages. If I understand the settlement correctly, you can pull your books -- but only before April 5, 2011. According to one blogger, you can even get a better deal via Google Books Partner Program than via the Settlement. Some authors are apparently satisfied with this, others are not.

The more serious problem is unless there is a legislative change, the arrangement should be opt-in, not opt-out, with the possible exception of orphaned works; and that Google may be settling its way to a monopolistic advantage.



Maybe, maybe not. The government still doesn't have the right to violate existing copyright protections in this manner, unless they change the laws. You also have a lot of privacy and possible censorship issues. For example, if any of those out-of-print books have material that offends a constituency (e.g. a book from the 1930s that promotes racism; or books containing material that might be regarded as prurient) you'll have a huge outcry, an impulse to censor the material, and possible use for all kinds of investigations.




Well, that's an exceptionally charitable view, especially since Google has never indicated that they want anyone to overturn copyright laws, and stridently defends its own intellectual property.

Besides, Google is a corporation and is trying to manipulate and control access to content on its own terms. How is this not another example of "corporate copyright control" ?

As Google pointed out, this is a non-exclusive deal. The same deal can be made by other companies. That doesn't sound like a monopoly to me. The main purpose of the Google was to digitize the out-of print works. The whole rationale of Google's project was to make available (and preserve) out-of-print works. If the US government hadn't been lobbied by Hollywood to prevent anything further from falling into the public domain in 1976, it would be a moot point. 56 years and then scan away. Even cheap paperbacks last that long (usually). But this problem is a direct result of Hollywood's successful lobbying, 56 years has become up to 140+ years, with the only guarantee is that in another 5-8 years, Hollywood will try to stretch it further. (We can free the slaves, but we'll never free Gone With The Wind)

Google's answer is a bad answer. Only the current situation is a worse one...

RSE

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by RSE

Google's answer is a bad answer. Only the current situation is a worse one...

Well, I think I can agree with that. However I don't think the Google settlement is the only achievable option, nor does it conform to existing copyright law. It's not the job of a class action lawsuit to generate legislation.

Originally Posted by RSE

As Google pointed out, this is a non-exclusive deal. The same deal can be made by other companies. That doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.

You don't need legal exclusivity in order to establish or maintain a monopoly.

However, the Settlement option does give Google several potentially unfair advantages, including delays in crafting similar agreements and granting the Author's Guild et al a de facto "gatekeeper" role. I can easily imagine that Amazon tries to set up a similar agreement and add TTS rights, only to be told by the AG to take a flying leap.

Originally Posted by RSE

The whole rationale of Google's project was to make available (and preserve) out-of-print works.

Google is not a charity or a non-profit, and as such this is only part of their rationale. Other reasons include generating revenue and cementing their role as the premiere (if not monopolistic) digital search resource.

Originally Posted by RSE

If the US government hadn't been lobbied by Hollywood to prevent anything further from falling into the public domain in 1976, it would be a moot point.... But this problem is a direct result of Hollywood's successful lobbying, 56 years has become up to 140+ years, with the only guarantee is that in another 5-8 years, Hollywood will try to stretch it further.

1) This line of logic does not explain why many nations, which afaik were not lobbied by Hollywood, have similarly long copyright terms (e.g. life + 50 or 70 years).
2) Although life + 70 is fairly long, a truly indefinite term is a clear violation of the US Constitution; and the most recent extensions were reviewed with this in mind. I.e. I seriously doubt another extension to life + 90 would be considered viable, unless life expectancy increases from 70 to 100.
3) Many of the books Google has scanned would not fall into PD any time soon. Lots of the authors are still alive and kicking.
4) The result of Google's actions will not be even remotely equivalent to putting a book into PD. They will just be more widely available in a commercialized context. You still have to pay to access the books, and cannot reproduce or sell one of Google's scanned books without paying for it.

[Greg Anos]

Kali, I'm not trolling, just discussing...

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

...

1) This line of logic does not explain why many nations, which afaik were not lobbied by Hollywood, have similarly long copyright terms (e.g. life + 50 or 70 years).

Actually, every one of the Berne extensions were heavily lobbied by Hollywood. Talk to the European members who follow copyright closely. The general plan is to get one place to extend and then use that extension as a reason to cause other places to extend, while saintly saying things about protecting the (dead) artists. The Draconian internet rules in France were heavily lobbied for by the MPAA and the RIAA. Same for the US DCMA.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

2) Although life + 70 is fairly long, a truly indefinite term is a clear violation of the US Constitution; and the most recent extensions were reviewed with this in mind. I.e. I seriously doubt another extension to life + 90 would be considered viable, unless life expectancy increases from 70 to 100.

Having read the the Supreme Court Decision (sorry, I don't have a link), I disagree. The 2003 decision said that any length was OK, as long as it wasn't perpetual. Hollywood will be back in 5 years for another 25 year extension, just watch...

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

3) Many of the books Google has scanned would not fall into PD any time soon. Lots of the authors are still alive and kicking.

And if they're kicking, then they can opt-out. What's the problem?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

4) The result of Google's actions will not be even remotely equivalent to putting a book into PD. They will just be more widely available in a commercialized context. You still have to pay to access the books, and cannot reproduce or sell one of Google's scanned books without paying for it.

Agreed. But they will be available, which is more than can be said today...

[igorsk]

Spider Robinson already knew where it all will lead in 1983. Some of those "government people" need to read it.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It's not the job of a class action lawsuit to generate legislation.

And it isn't legislation. I don't get why people are acting as if this settlement is a law or court ruling. It isn't!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And if they're kicking, then they can opt-out. What's the problem?

The problem is that they shouldn't have to opt-out of losing controls that the law grants them. A court ruling shouldn't be able to remove those rights for all authors. Especially since the opt-out period is limited, and I don't see any obvious description for how authors 15 years from now will be informed of their opt-out rights.

Agreed. But they will be available, which is more than can be said today...

And there's the main issue.

On the one hand, the Google settlement rides roughshod over author's rights, and has some gaping loopholes (like the fact that it doesn't just include *published* authors, but anyone who has a copyright, regardless of registration status... Google could start scanning kids' term papers and selling them to other students).

On the other... damn, there's a lot of books out of print, that a lot of people would love to make accessible, except that publishers are sitting on the rights, or the authors (or their heirs) have no idea how to make them available again.

I think the Google settlement goes too far. It doesn't just offer terms for authors whose rights they have violated (and I think it does okay in that part--offers basic compensation, and opt-out for those who want to pursue other options); it sets up terms for them to continue to violate the rights of future authors, and existing authors who aren't published in the US.

I like their goals--making out-of-print books accessible. I understand that this is likely the only way to get around the MPAA/RIAA stranglehold on copyright. But I don't think this particular solution will fly.

I hope that it spotlights the problems enough to start working on one that will.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by igorsk

Spider Robinson already knew where it all will lead in 1983. Some of those "government people" need to read it.

:Bows Deeply to Igorsky: A magnificent and appropriate story...

Many people seem to hate Google. I don't understand why. They found a way to do something better that other people had been doing. That gave the a dominance in search. They played the capitalistic game and won honorably, by providing a better service than any of it's competitors. Not by cheating, or stealing, damaging their competitors. This is bad?

But to Google's settlement and the story. In the US, it has become tradition to break legislative strangleholds through the courts. We ended our equivalent of apartheid via the courts. Abortion was legalized by the courts. Pornography laws were overturned by the courts. Busing of school children for forced integration was order by the courts. All of these had strong backing against changing these laws, and the courts overrode those constituencies.

Google is trying to do the same thing. A run around the current laws, instead of a frontal assault against them, by forcing a "use it or lose it" requirement into copyright (actually it's a lose control of it). They're doing it for profit, of course. How much profit they'll make I don't know. After all, most of the out-of-print works are out-of-print for a reason. How many people are going to buy The Mudhen? Or a 1943 mid-list novel? Will it be enough to pay for the scanning? <shrug> Google is already $125 million in the hole, before getting a dime in revenue. And that's not even including the scanning costs.

To my view, the main effect, whether deliberate or accidental, will be to disrupt the "stockpiling" stranglehold on copyrighted works. And that's a good thing, IMHO. Revising copyright would be far better, but that would take a frontal assault (billions and billions of dollars) against entrenched interests. Wiil it work? Who knows? It's at least an attack on the "add another 25 years forever" vested interest....