U.S. Government blasts Google

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by ahi

Of course he doesn't.
Multi-million dollar business do not need to pettily break laws when they can just as easily direct legislation.

That is what this whole action is about. Microsoft vs. Google. Same as always.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

That is what this whole action is about. Microsoft vs. Google. Same as always.

Personally, I would not be greatly upset if they both lost.

Why isn't the government doing what Google proposes to do?

Oh... yeah... because the Soviet Union existed 20 years ago. That's why.

- Ahi

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

well, since the "law" (copyright law, that is) is an indisputable act of pillage of the public domain and is fundamentally at odds with the spirit in which copyright was created, i can't say i'm too bothered here personally.

The Google Settlement has nothing to do with copyright term limits and public domain. The settlement purports to grant Google the ability to distribute and earn money from ebooks without the explicit consent of, or any negotiation whatsoever with, the copyright holder. It's pretty clear that what Google is doing violates copyright.

To put it another way: how would you react if Amazon started producing and selling ebooks of out-of-print titles without asking the author's permission first and at a non-negotiable, pre-set rate? You'd be going through the ceiling decrying Amazon's heavy-handed greedy practices.

I hardly see how what Google is doing is in the "spirit" of copyright. It's in the spirit of Google securing itself as a primary, if not exclusive, repository of digital information, no matter whose rights have to get trampled in the process.

Originally Posted by ahi

Google wants to distribute books to a wider audience and compensate the rights-holders for each sale?! How dare they!

Or, one can say that Google wants a stranglehold on digitized information, wants to generate new legislation from a class-action lawsuit, and plans to offer rights-holders a non-negotiable pittance for their work.

Let's face it, Google is not a charity and they are not doing this out of the Pure Shiny Goodness of their hearts. They're just as much a business as any other company.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I hardly see how what Google is doing is in the "spirit" of copyright. It's in the spirit of Google securing itself as a primary, if not exclusive, repository of digital information, no matter whose rights have to get trampled in the process.

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.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It's pretty clear that what Google is doing violates copyright.

How so, when any rights holder can decline participation?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Let's face it, Google is not a charity and they are not doing this out of the Pure Shiny Goodness of their hearts. They're just as much a business as any other company.

Obviously, but altruism is not the issue is it?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Or, one can say that Google wants a stranglehold on digitized information, wants to generate new legislation from a class-action lawsuit, and plans to offer rights-holders a non-negotiable pittance for their work.

Let's face it, Google is not a charity and they are not doing this out of the Pure Shiny Goodness of their hearts. They're just as much a business as any other company.

One could... assuming said pittance is smaller than the pittance rights-holders generally receive.

If it isn't though... 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).

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

But, at the same time, I am yet to see anything that suggests Google would give any worse a deal to anyone than they generally get from their publishers.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

How so, when any rights holder can decline participation?

Authorization to distribute should be opt-in, not opt-out. In other words, Google should not be authorized by default. It's supposed to be the other way around, unless somebody wants to change the law such that out-of-print books are automatically authorized unless the copyright holder says otherwise. But, that's not what the law currently says.

This settlement, if allowed to go forward, would give Google a different standing on distribution rights than anyone else (unless other companies reach the same settlement).

Personally, I think the settlement goes too far (based on current copyright law). The actual plaintiffs were represented by 5 authors. Those 5 authors have basically settled with Google on behalf of every author who has ever had a book published in the US, and is giving away a default authorization. I think the membership of the class is way too broad and the settlement should not be allowed to give away those rights on an opt-out basis. That's just my opinion though. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of current copyright either.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

One could... assuming said pittance is smaller than the pittance rights-holders generally receive.

What is the pittance that rights holders generally receive for out-of-print books. Is it greater than zero?

I would assume that out-of-print books are not generating any revenue for the authors anyway, so I don't really see how they are really losing much. On the other hand, they are losing control (but that was never supposed to be guaranteed by copyright in the first place).

Personally, I think either Google should not have an automatic authorization for out-of-print books, or else everyone should. I'd lean more towards the latter.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Authorization to distribute should be opt-in, not opt-out.

Isn't the whole point of it not being opt-in to prevent unknown or difficult to track down rights ownership and publisher apathy from basically removing most books from their list?

They might be a private company... but what they are trying to do is most definitely of considerable service to the public. In light of that... why should the publisher that owns rights to over 20,000 books be able to continue to keep all 19,000+ of them out of print by doing nothing... instead of being required to actively opt-out for the 100+ books they actually don't want Google fooling around with because they plan to bring them back into print within the foreseeable future and/or have competing titles on the market?

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What is the pittance that rights holders generally receive for out-of-print books. Is it greater than zero?

I would assume that out-of-print books are not generating any revenue for the authors anyway, so I don't really see how they are really losing much. On the other hand, they are losing control (but that was never supposed to be guaranteed by copyright in the first place).

Personally, I think either Google should not have an automatic authorization for out-of-print books, or else everyone should. I'd lean more towards the latter.

The agreement is that Google can publish and sell out of print works under copyright without compensating the rights-holder?

The pittance is greater than zero, but on a per-book basis, certainly not by much!

And yes, the latter is certainly the sane choice. Though I think you must be mistaken in assuming no compensation is involved.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

Isn't the whole point of it not being opt-in to prevent unknown or difficult to track down rights ownership and publisher apathy from basically removing most books from their list?

They might be a private company... but what they are trying to do is most definitely of considerable service to the public. In light of that... why should the publisher that owns rights to over 20,000 books be able to continue to keep all 19,000+ of them out of print by doing nothing... instead of being required to actively opt-out for the 100+ books they actually don't want Google fooling around with because they plan to bring them back into print within the foreseeable future and/or have competing titles on the market?

- Ahi

Personally I agree with you. I'm just stating what I believe would be the correct action based on current law.

Yes, I think the basic principle behind making out-of-print books, which are not generating any revenue for the rights holders anyway, available is a noble cause. I also believe that it wouldn't be necessary without the gross evolution of copyright law to serve the rights holders interestes at the expense of public domain. Most of those out of print titles should be freely available already.

However, rather than give Google an exception to the current way things work, I think the law itself should be changed.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

The agreement is that Google can publish and sell out of print works under copyright without compensating the rights-holder?

The pittance is greater than zero, but on a per-book basis, certainly not by much!

And yes, the latter is certainly the sane choice. Though I think you must be mistaken in assuming no compensation is involved.

- Ahi

No, I meant that without Google in the picture, a book today that is out-of-print is not making any money for the author. So, if Google does make that book available and pay a pittance to the authors, at least that pittance is more than they would have been getting otherwise.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

That is what this whole action is about. Microsoft vs. Google. Same as always.

And as usual in recent years, Microsoft's side is less creepy.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Personally I agree with you. I'm just stating what I believe would be the correct action based on current law.

....

However, rather than give Google an exception to the current way things work, I think the law itself should be changed.

That would also be my preference. Though somehow that seems far less realistic to me than the Government ultimately bending over for a huge multimillion dollar company--and the fact that their aims do not appear, at this time, to be entirely malicious is probably beside the point.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, I meant that without Google in the picture, a book today that is out-of-print is not making any money for the author. So, if Google does make that book available and pay a pittance to the authors, at least that pittance is more than they would have been getting otherwise.

Ah. My apologies for the misunderstanding then!

- Ahi

[Greg Anos]

I've gotta stick my oar in....

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. Will they succeed? Who knows? So far, I think it's mostly flying under Hollywood's radar right now. If it stands, it would have implications for indie movies that are orphaned today, as well....