Google's Plan For Out-of-Print Books Is Challenged 324
Death Metal writes to tell us that a growing tide of complaints are being piled at Google's feet in response to a far-reaching settlement that some feel will grant the giant too much power over the "orphan books" they have been scanning into digital format. The settlement could give Google near-exclusivity with respect to the copyright of orphan works — books that the author and publisher have essentially abandoned. They are out of print, and while they remain under copyright, the rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. "Critics say that without the orphan books, no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create, giving the company more control than ever over the realm of digital information. And without competition, they say, Google will be able to charge universities and others high prices for access to its database. The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly.'"
The Same Old Story (Score:5, Interesting)
The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly.'
Why is it that books -- of all things -- should be the last thing to be digitized [slashdot.org]?
... I'm not even going to get into the jump they
see in sales when their books are digitized.
Your resistance is futile. It perplexes me that you -- a university librarian -- cannot see what is so obvious to me but I will spoon feed it to you. We live in a capitalistic society where supply rises to meet demand. I am a ravenous consumer of books and for sometime have desired an all-encompassing repository of books. You, the writers guilds, the publishers, the industry as a whole have failed to meet this demand for sometime now. Unfortunately for you, the early bird gets the worm. The early bird being Google, the worm being my rewarding eyeballs and possibly pocketbook. I may have been the minority of your consumers but that has changed and it is no longer you against a few nerds. It's you against the world. You will lose. Your industry has successfully prevented this. Why, I'm not quite sure. Greed? Stupidity? There are so many good words to pick from.
You will have to forgive me when I lack sympathy for your position on the books your archaic publishing system fails to make available to me. Oh no, no one will ever be able to publish them now! Alas, woe is me. Instead of being permanently unavailable to me, they will soon be available to everyone
If Google's inevitable monopoly is nigh, why don't you draw up your own business plan to garner venture capital and get all the universities to back you on it? Google's taking a risk and in the end, it's going to be good for the end consumer.
Either shit or get off the toilet. You had your chance, you squandered it. This should have been started almost a decade ago and completed five years ago. I'm sick and tired of the greed factor inhibiting such a useful tool for mankind. As head of an ivy league university library, I would have guessed support for what could well be the modern digital version of Alexandria before it was burned. I'm shocked a librarian would take this stance.
Conflicted (Score:5, Interesting)
However I feel that if Google are to be given any rights over works as the ones mentioned then it should be for a limited time only. Perhaps as a reward for taking the initiate and as way for them to profit from their endeavour. But as I said, only for, say 5-10 years, after that the rights to any such material should be freely available to everyone.
In any regards I would consider any sort of long-term or permanent rights given to Google would be a very bad thing.
GFineman (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I would say.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess I don't see why Google has a monopoly at all. Does anyone know how Google managed to get exclusive rights to orphaned books especially when, by definition, the owners of the materials weren't present for any negotiations? Why not just open the books up to everyone, including Google. If Google decides to be evil, someone else can pay to have the books scanned and charge whatever they want for them. Alternatively, just put it in the settlement that Google cannot charge for access to the orphaned material.
It really doesn't seem like this should be that hard. There's an audience that wants access to books that no one is expecting royalties on; in an age of unlimited free copying, that should be a no brainer.
The right to withold a work (Score:3, Interesting)
It also helps to highlight one of the major issues with the long length of copyright in the United States. Given that information is owned by the Public once it is produced and We the Public actually limit our own rights to reproduce a work for a limited period of time in the form of copyright, isn't someone witholding the work or getting this effort tangled up actually a violation of the spirit of the agreement between the creator and the Public?
In that sense, I think what google is doing is Right. In the interest of the Public their actions will do more to promote mankind than the perversion that copyright has become in the United States.
When it comes to Google's right to reproduce such works for profit, I become hesitant, but my level of fear from this sort of action only rises to a level I might call 'slight concern'. I HOPE that Google's effort succeeds. If they end up being able to charge a reasonable (w/ respect to cost) amount for the imaging, processing, storing, and production of this database, I think that would be more than fair.
Our Government should have done this years ago.
explain (Score:4, Interesting)
So, is Google asserting copyright on the scans of the books whose copyright Google doesn't own? Could I just copy and redistribute Google's scan of the book? After all, I have as much claim to the book as Google, and the scan itself is not a creative work.
Re:Orphaned? (Score:4, Interesting)
They have a few exceptions where the copyright holder has made a deal with them, like Bruce Sterling's Hacker Crackdown.
Now they're complaining? (Score:2, Interesting)
At the time the publishers and authors complained and sued Google, there were warnings about this happening. But the publishers and authors, who regard our pocketbooks as their property, were satisfied with the bribe... er... settlment Google offered. And only NOW, after the Big G fought alone on this front, are they complaining.
Just curious, is the tale of the Little Red Hen, who could find no help with planting, cultivating and harvesting the corn that everybody who hadn't helped wanted to eat when the work was done, in the public domain? Send a copy to the complainers and require reciting it verbatim from memory as a requirement for filing any complaints.
Re:Google will own the books? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because you and I believe something to be true doesn't mean that a judge will agree. There will likely be quite a few factors that would play into a judge's decision. e.g. Was the scanning process completely automated or where there manual steps? Were any changes made to the layout or format of the text? Were images and/or the cover remade? Does the digital technology count as creativity added to the work?
These questions and many others would likely play a role in any court case. How the judge decides might very well depend on the judge, the phase of the moon, and which way the wind is blowing. Thus unless you're looking to go to court, you must assume that the work is copyrighted. At least until someone is gutsy enough to prove otherwise.
Re:Except that... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except you died. Your estate wants nothing really to do with your book and the last known publication was 20 years ago.
And now, someone actually wants to read the book...
Re:Google will own the books? (Score:3, Interesting)
From a practical perspective, there is some danger, because the threat of litigation from a big company can be enough to shut down a small entity just because of the cost of going to court, even where the company doesn't have much of a chance of success. However, I think this is pretty clear-cut.
BTW, I am a law student, but I am not your lawyer. I'm not even your law student.
Re:Interesting that a librarian should say this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Step 1:
What if Google were to allow libraries to link their stock to the book collection?
That way, a user could check for availability of the selected book at (local) libraries.
Step 2:
Thay way, the libraries that have the book get the traffic and the user can check for (nationwide) availability.
Step 3:
Everybody wins:
- Google gets an index of every book ever published
- Google can perform full-text search on every book
- The libraries get publicity
- People will join a library if required (profit!)
Re:re-read the section you quote (Score:1, Interesting)
It's a stretch to say that what Google is doing is anticompetitive, especially since they aren't competing with anyone; it's a completely and totally untapped market that Google brought to light.
Of course in 10 years when the publishers try to sue Google because they made billions off of books they didn't think were worth their time it'll be claimed up and down that they're being anti-competitive then, but for causality's sake, let's stick to arguments that can be had now.
Re:re-read the section you quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Out of print and orphaned should be the same thing.
Creative works are meant to be propagated. If the work isn't being propagated for
what ever reason (not profitable?), then copyright should quickly expire. This would
be something along the lines of abandonment of real property.
Not quite so simple (Score:3, Interesting)
What the Google Class Action suit basically does is give Google DEFAULT permission to do something that is otherwise forbidden for everyone else. This puts Google in a relatively unique position regarding copyright of orphaned works. One cannot legally get to the same position that Google is in without doing something illegal and compelling similar terms.
This being said, I support the Google suit, and hope that it is the starting point of a dialog regarding how we address orphaned works. I hope the outcome is a compulsatory licensing regime. The only thing I am concerned about is that this sort of deal removes Google's interest in seeing comulsatory licensing for orphaned works made law since they got this through the courts.
Re:re-read the section you quote (Score:3, Interesting)
That's actually a fairly low barrier to entry for competitors.
To compete with google, you would need to hire 950 low-wage people to scan books for a few years. If the average person can scan 4 books per day, then they can scan 1 million books per year. You would also need some lawyers to negotiate a settlement, however you would presumably need far fewer lawyers than scanners in order to write a single 160-page agreement like the kind google has written. You could even make it easier for the publishers to reach an agreement with your company by offering the publishers better terms than those which google has offered, so they would stand to make more money than they make off google and would be inclined to agree to your contract without too much trouble.
All of those things could be done by a typical medium-sized company if google demonstrates that book scanning is a profitable venture by making money off it.
If google starts charging "unbearably high prices" for orphan books, as someone in the NYT article claims, then competitors will spring up because the barrier to entry is so low and because so many enterpreneurs are searching for ways to make money and would be motivated by even less than "unbearably high prices".