There is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

It's not odd for non-fiction.

...
And, just to remind people, Google would have allowed authors and estates to charge, for the eBooks, whatever they wanted up to $29.99, of which the rights-holder would get $18.89 (63 percent). It is only the titles where no rights-holder came forward (or where the rights holder was content with the Google recommendation) where Google would set the price, 63 percent of which would go to the Books Rights Registry.

This all seems to me a little like the accepted ASCAP music royalty scheme.

That's likely where Google got the idea. IMPO, it was a good deal for the vast majority of authors, but a few authors got on their high horse and shot it down. There really is a great deal of emotion involved. A lot of professional authors had their finances planned around the previous business model of books being re-printed on a regular basis, generating a predictable income each time. One can argue that they will likely get more income on a steady basis via ebooks, but until they have data confirming that, it's a bit of a gamble.

I suspect that now ebooks have been around for a number of years and as more and more authors start releasing their backlist as ebooks, if Google were to make the same proposal, it would be better received. But I don't think that Google is all that interested in revisiting it. Also, I would imagine that Amazon will strongly oppose such deal.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Let's not play that game ok. Without really trying, I could probably find at least 100 books that fit your parameters.
But my dear, that is half the fun of collecting is finding a rare gem.

Why shouldn't we play that game?? Orphan works are the best argument for copyright reform. If the owner of the rights can't be determined, who is hurt by the book going into the public domain so that it can be preserved? I'm not looking for free books...I am perfectly willing to pay for an ebook version of a book. Of course, I can't pay for it if it isn't available.

Shari

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by shalym

Why shouldn't we play that game?? Orphan works are the best argument for copyright reform. If the owner of the rights can't be determined, who is hurt by the book going into the public domain so that it can be preserved? I'm not looking for free books...I am perfectly willing to pay for an ebook version of a book. Of course, I can't pay for it if it isn't available.

Shari

I agree with you. I was referring to specifying exact books. Though this leads me to a question. What about limited edition or fundraiser books?
First example would be the book I listed earlier. The second would be books like "The Blue Denim Cookbook." It was put out by the Junior League of Odessa. The Juliet Cookbook put out by the Juliet Society to help the Globe Theater. (In Texas not England).
The Trinity Cookbook by the Big Spring Methodist Church published in the 1930's.

How should those types of books be handled? Now or in the future since the latter group were all compiled for a specific reason.

*Though I think some of these newfangled ebooks should have been abandoned before they were published.

**What about ebooks that were pulled because they violated trademark laws?
Two other groups of books for our future selves to argue about whether society should have access to them.

***Oh and even if all books were available digitally, that doesn't mean everyone would have easy access to them.

I just wish all the indexes to all my cookbooks could be easily scanned and accessed to make it easier to find a recipe. Now that would be useful to me.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Because they have no actual obligation to the public.
Heck, if I want to release "The adventures of Cinisajoy", that is my prerogative.
If I decide later to pull said book, that is also my choice. I have no obligation to the public to make sure the book, movie or cd is available for all eternity.
So now let me phrase it like this.
What gives the public the right to tell me what I should do with MY property?
Why should the public have that right?

Ah but how can you be sure your heirs will see it the same way? Shakespeare never sought to get his plays into print for the public for example. It was friends and fellow players who did that after his death. They are responsible for the first folio. One reason I understand that they did it was to make sure that proper copies were in circulation. People had been passing off inferior copies of the plays with such quotes as "To be or not to be aye that's the point" instead of "To be or not to be that is the question." The public wanted the plays to be available first though. And normally most authors want their works to continue to be read even long after they're gone. We only know about the great authors of the past because their works have come down to us. Copyright protects the rights of the author during his/her lifetime and it also exists to protect the rights of the publisher who foots the bill of printing copies of said works. With ebooks we have the chance to preserve books that would otherwise be lost well into the far distant future. A laudable goal if ever I heard of one.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by crich70

Ah but how can you be sure your heirs will see it the same way? Shakespeare never sought to get his plays into print for the public for example. It was friends and fellow players who did that after his death. They are responsible for the first folio. One reason I understand that they did it was to make sure that proper copies were in circulation. People had been passing off inferior copies of the plays with such quotes as "To be or not to be aye that's the point" instead of "To be or not to be that is the question." The public wanted the plays to be available first though. And normally most authors want their works to continue to be read even long after they're gone. We only know about the great authors of the past because their works have come down to us. Copyright protects the rights of the author during his/her lifetime and it also exists to protect the rights of the publisher who foots the bill of printing copies of said works. With ebooks we have the chance to preserve books that would otherwise be lost well into the far distant future. A laudable goal if ever I heard of one.

If my grandson wants to republish them, that would be his right.
But I don't think it is Joe Q. Public's right.
I was saying that if I publish then pull, then Joe should not be able to republish during my lifetime.
After copyright expires then Joe is more than welcome to publish or change it as he sees fit.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-books/523320/

Quote also: "After the settlement failed, Clancy told me that at Google “there was just this air let out of the balloon.” Despite eventually winning Authors Guild v. Google, and having the courts declare that displaying snippets of copyrighted books was fair use, the company all but shut down its scanning operation."

There was something similar to this when newspapers and magazines started selling digital copies from their archives of articles they had printed before the digital era. The authors claimed that they had not been compensated fairly for future digital sales - because of course that had not existed when the articles first appeared. Current authors sign off the further use of their articles so they had no claim. But all the old authors saw a chance for additional compensation (more compensation as it were) for their old work and sued.

Finally the newspapers/magazines/etc. said they would just not include any authors's work, title or author's name in their index if the author had not signed off for digital copies. Naturally this was not acceptable to the authors either because it essentially erased a great deal of their legacy.

I don't know what happened to that litigation.

Does anyone?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by frahse

Quote also: "After the settlement failed, Clancy told me that at Google “there was just this air let out of the balloon.” Despite eventually winning Authors Guild v. Google, and having the courts declare that displaying snippets of copyrighted books was fair use, the company all but shut down its scanning operation."

There was something similar to this when newspapers and magazines started selling digital copies from their archives of articles they had printed before the digital era. The authors claimed that they had not been compensated fairly for future digital sales - because of course that had not existed when the articles first appeared. Current authors sign off the further use of their articles so they had no claim. But all the old authors saw a chance for additional compensation (more compensation as it were) for their old work and sued.

Finally the newspapers/magazines/etc. said they would just not include any authors's work, title or author's name in their index if the author had not signed off for digital copies. Naturally this was not acceptable to the authors either because it essentially erased a great deal of their legacy.

I don't know what happened to that litigation.

Does anyone?

I just looked up Southern Living Annual Recipes. Only the last few years are available in the ebook version.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by frahse

Quote also: "After the settlement failed, Clancy told me that at Google “there was just this air let out of the balloon.” Despite eventually winning Authors Guild v. Google, and having the courts declare that displaying snippets of copyrighted books was fair use, the company all but shut down its scanning operation."

There was something similar to this when newspapers and magazines started selling digital copies from their archives of articles they had printed before the digital era. The authors claimed that they had not been compensated fairly for future digital sales - because of course that had not existed when the articles first appeared. Current authors sign off the further use of their articles so they had no claim. But all the old authors saw a chance for additional compensation (more compensation as it were) for their old work and sued.

Finally the newspapers/magazines/etc. said they would just not include any authors's work, title or author's name in their index if the author had not signed off for digital copies. Naturally this was not acceptable to the authors either because it essentially erased a great deal of their legacy.

I don't know what happened to that litigation.

Does anyone?

If memory serves a similar problem occurred when Disney began releasing its classic animated movies on VHS back in the day. Voice actors like Peggy Lee (who voiced Peg in Lady and the Tramp) argued that they should get some of the proceeds from those sales even though home VHS (and now DVD) media hadn't existed back when they signed the contracts. I think she won her case though it might have been overturned (or not) on appeal. I can't recall if it was or not. It was in the news way back in the 1980's.

[fjtorres]

Until copyright law changes in the US there is no eminent domain for books, much less eminent domain designed to deliver profits to one giant multinational.

I would not hold my breath waiting for that to change just because it annoys the "I want it" crowd. So far, no law says that wanting something entitles you to get it.

Don't like it? Write your congressman and see how far it gets you.
Miracles happen...
...and that's what it would take.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Until copyright law changes in the US there is no eminent domain for books, much less eminent domain designed to deliver profits to one giant multinational.

I would not hold my breath waiting for that to change just because it annoys the "I want it" crowd. So far, no law says that wanting something entitles you to get it.

Don't like it? Write your congressman and see how far it gets you.
Miracles happen...
...and that's what it would take.

Not sure why you think the government should pay for something they will get for free eventually. Perhaps you are using the term eminent domain to mean reducing the term of copyright.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not sure why you think the government should pay for something they will get for free eventually. Perhaps you are using the term eminent domain to mean reducing the term of copyright.

Eminent Domain = the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.
---
I think fjtorres meant that the government can't just take privately owned properties like books from the author and distribute them to others with a bit of compensation provided to them. The government (usually on local level) has been known to seize land such as right of ways connected with where a new road is planned with monies given to the land owner as compensation. So if you are on your own private land and the government decides it wants to build a road over it they can claim eminent domain and take the land in exchange for compensation given to you. I don't think they will ever extend that to books myself. After all how could they justify taking let's say a poem that I wrote and putting it in Public Domain while I'm still living? What purpose could that serve? Eminent Domain is usually applied to tangible assets such as land, not intellectual assets like literature.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by crich70

Eminent Domain = the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.
---
I think fjtorres meant that the government can't just take privately owned properties like books from the author and distribute them to others with a bit of compensation provided to them. The government (usually on local level) has been known to seize land such as right of ways connected with where a new road is planned with monies given to the land owner as compensation. So if you are on your own private land and the government decides it wants to build a road over it they can claim eminent domain and take the land in exchange for compensation given to you. I don't think they will ever extend that to books myself. After all how could they justify taking let's say a poem that I wrote and putting it in Public Domain while I'm still living? What purpose could that serve? Eminent Domain is usually applied to tangible assets such as land, not intellectual assets like literature.

I'm well aware that it was an attempt to assert that copyright is property without explicitly saying so. Once again, copyright is not property, it's a limited time monopoly on the right to copy something. If you want to use an analogy, then lease is much more correct than property.

One of the funny things about the US legal system is that the law is whatever you can convince a judge and jury of. Thus it is certainly possible that some legal eagle might assert the novel legal doctrine that one can use eminent domain with regards to copyright. People have stretched the law a lot farther than that in the past.

But in the case of copyright, in the US, the government is allowed to issue fair use exceptions. Thus, it's much more likely that if the government wants to use your poem, they would simply say that governmental use is a fair use exception and be on much more solid legal footing.