Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, book sellers group it like this since, how long? Since Harry Potter?

Allen County Public Library (Fort Wayne, Indiana) had The Lord of the Rings in its "Science Fiction and Fantasy" section in late 1993. This was three and a half years before first publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

I don't know, I assume the 'free market' prevents him from getting a deal with any publisher at all, if he does not agree to slavery terms?

An author could always be his own publisher, hiring an editor and having books printed through a contract printer. Or he could sign a time-limited contract with a publisher and have copyrights revert to him after a decade. Or he could license the rights to a publisher throughout the industrialized Anglosphere (US, CA, GB, IE, AU, NZ, ZA) but retain rights in the rest of the world, as the Authors Guild suggests. Or an author could sign with Baen, a publisher that not only specializes in speculative fiction but also "gets it" with respect to e-books. Baen offers e-books with no digital restrictions management, releases many of its authors' older works as free samples in the Baen Free Library, and even offers paid early access to the public.

The Kindle was a lot better for visually impaired users until the Author's Guild did their dirty work to prevent the text-to-audio feature.

Yes, Amazon should make it easier to navigate but maybe positive pressure rather than lawsuits to prevent the feature would help speed that along.

It can convert words to audio itself. Not necessarily

With the deadline approaching for 'opting out' of the Google Books settlement, the Authors Guild has posted an aggressive explanation of who it thinks should do that: no one.

Actually what they said specifically is:

Opting out of the settlement is for authors who want to preserve their right to sue Google themselves. We donâ(TM)t think there are any such authors.

Oh how they doubt the litigious desire of some people that believe their works turn the paper they're printed on to gold.

http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html

from the Authors Guild page:

10/28/08 - Authors Guild v. Google Settlement Resources Page

On October 28, 2008 the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers and Google announced the landmark settlement of Authors Guild v. Google. On this page, we've gathered documents and links that will be of interest to authors and others regarding this settlement.

Critical Dates:

January 5, 2009: Notice is mailed to rightsholders around the world and published in newspapers and magazines. A preliminary list of books covered by the settlement becomes available to rightsholders.

September 4, 2009: The last day to opt out of the settlement as a whole.

October 7, 2009: A court hearing will take place to determine the fairness of the settlement.

January 5, 2010: Deadline for filing claim for cash payment for Google's pre-settlement scanning and digitization of books.

Bolding added by me.

So I may have overspoke when I said the class action was "for every author ever", it looks as if it's for "any author that had a book in the libraries in question".

This item, and the post to which it links, are utterly false. It really doesn't belong here.

Not one penny from the settlement (or from Google, or from anyone else) will go to the Authors Guild. I was involved in the two years of negotiations with Google, on the authors side, and I can tell you this as a simple matter of fact. But don't take my word for it; there are no secrets here. All the documentation is publicly available.

This isn't about "out of copyright" works. It's about works that are still under copyright, but out of print. Google effectively just bought the rights to all out of print books.

Here's the Author's Guild description of the deal. Authors can opt out, but only have until May 9 to do so.

These are the actual terms:

The settlement, if Court-approved, will authorize Google to scan in-copyright Books and Inserts in the United States, and maintain an electronic database of Books. For out-of-print Books and, if permitted by Rightsholders of in-print Books, Google will be able to sell access to individual Books and institutional subscriptions to the database, place advertisements on any page dedicated to a Book, and make other commercial uses of Books. At any time, Rightsholders can change instructions to Google regarding any of those uses. Through a Book Rights Registry ("Registry") established by the settlement, Google will pay Rightsholders 63% of all revenues from these uses.

Kindle 2's experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given. Furthermore, we ourselves are a major participant in the professionally narrated audiobooks business through our subsidiaries Audible and Brilliance. We believe text-to-speech will introduce new customers to the convenience of listening to books and thereby grow the professionally narrated audiobooks business.

Nevertheless, we strongly believe many rightsholders will be more comfortable with the text-to-speech feature if they are in the driver's seat.
Therefore, we are modifying our systems so that rightsholders can decide on a title by title basis whether they want text-to-speech enabled or disabled for any particular title. We have already begun to work on the technical changes required to give authors and publishers that choice. With this new level of control, publishers and authors will be able to decide for themselves whether it is in their commercial interests to leave text-to-speech enabled. We believe many will decide that it is.

Customers tell us that with Kindle, they read more, and buy more books. We are passionate about bringing the benefits of modern technology to long-form reading.

More Whiny Goodness cast in the "uhoh, business threat" mold

You're right that the Authors Guild relies on members. Which is precisely why, if you disagree with the statements of the Guild, you should put pressure on authors, either by boycotting any author who is a member of the Guild, or writing to them and asking them to signal their disapproval.

When the Authors Guild says these kinds of ridiculous things (and uses logic which, incidentally, implies that people with disabilities should not be allowed to convert media to a form they can use), it makes all members look like greedy idiots. Authors should speak up and tell the Guild that they do not want to be represented as such.

For a partial list of Guild members, see:

http://www.authorsguild.org/news/member_websites/a.html

Contacting the Guild and mentioning that you plan to boycott authors associated with them might also get the message across.

I went and looked at the member website list of the Authors Guild, and on a quick inspection it looks like I'd have to go out of my way to actually be infringing one of their books. Obviously people with different tastes in books might run into them more often, but this seems like even more of a bad idea on their part than normal.

Yes, any rightsholder can opt out.

Whether you are a member of the Authors Guild has nothing to do with whether you are part of the deal. If you are the rightsholder for a book that Google scans, or wants to scan, you are automatically part of the class (for purposes of the class action). But you can opt out.

This is a complicated deal, and many answers to questions of this kind are at the Authors Guild site.

"16. Why was this agreement limited to Google Book Search users within the U.S.?
Because this agreement is the result of a U.S. lawsuit, it directly affects the Google Book Search experience for those accessing the site in the U.S." From the Press FAQ(PDF)

Wow, google tries to put a couple pages from books on the web, and they get sued http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citin g.htm, then the government put images of documents on the web and its OK?

Hypocrites.

Provide a cite for your presumption. How about http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citin g.htm ??

'... other entites with a vested interest in "protection copyrights".'

Yeah, the authors.

The Guild's legal staff reviews its members' publishing and agency contracts, intervenes in publishing disputes, and holds seminars and symposia on issues of importance to writers. The Guild also lobbies on the national and local levels on behalf of all authors on issues such as copyright, taxation, and freedom of expression.

http://www.authorsguild.org/?p=51

Being a properly authorized agent of an author, it can and should represent selected interests of member authors. Google has no say in who exactly should deliver the opt-out message, as you have no say in what member of a legal firm may deliver court summons to you.

The first lawsuit filed against Google's plan to scan books is by The Authors Guild and three authors who are described by their press release (http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citi ng.htm) as follows:

"Herbert Mitgang, a former New York Times editorial writer and the author of numerous fiction and nonfiction books, including "The Fiery Trial: A Life of Lincoln," published by Viking Press; Betty Miles, the award-winning author of many works for children and young adults, and the co-author of "Just Think," published by Alfred A. Knopf; and Daniel Hoffman, the author and editor of many volumes of poetry, translation, and literary criticism, including "Barbarous Knowledge: Myth in the Poetry of Yeats, Graves and Muir" and "Striking the Stones," both published by Oxford University Press. Mr. Hoffman was the 1973-74 Poet Laureate of the United States."

As accomplished as those three authors are, they are nowhere near being household names, and one can only speculate two possible reasons why they're opposed to Google's effort: 1) they think people will stop buying their books once the books are turned into digital form and made available in the wild cyber frontier; 2) or just the opposite -- they think their books are so precious that they don't want people to find out about them on the Internet. This paranoia about new technology by some authors (here I emphasize "some", because many writers, including this one, do not mind having their books scanned by Google Print program) is really puzzling.

The commercial reality is this: Google can stop this scanning program right now, and it will continue to make money, and lots of money, in other areas. I believe Google's sincerity when it says it does this to help a student in Bangladesh to locate a hard-to-find book. Clearly, some writers, including the three mentioned above, do not think it's important for their books to be discovered by a diligent student in Bangladesh.

At this URL, they make it pretty clear that they want Google to pay the AG to index the AG works and offer free search services.

It's a bit like me demanding the trash man pay me for the right to take away my trash. After all, it's my property he's hauling away, so I should be compensated for the loss! Just because he's offering me a service isn't relevant!

I just sent them the following e-mail:

To: staff@authorsguild.org
Subject: Google Lawsuit

http://www.authorsguild.org/news/charity_handy_tal king.htm

Let me imagine a moment that I'm a publisher, or Writer's Guild.

Let me further imagine that a corporation wants to offer a free search engine, to make it easier for potential customers to search for and find the works written by the writers I represent.

I'll continue this pleasant little thought experiment by assuming they don't want to charge me or my writers any money. We don't even have to sign up.

It's not unlike what Amazon.com does for the books it sells, except this corporation wants to not only make the entire book searchable, while only making small segments available to readers, but offer a selection of purchase options, so potential readers will be even MORE likely to purchase the books.

What do I do?

Do I thank them for offering this free service that will only pour more money into the pockets of the writers I represent?

Do I start making arrangements to get them electronic copies of the books, so the writers I represent can get into the index that much sooner?

Oh, I know, I'll sue. I'll ignore all the long term benefits, and try to kill the project by blackmailing the corporation with a lawsuit and demands that THEY pay ME for providing a service to MY writers!

Brilliant.

I selecting the last option, I've guaranteed that the up and coming writers will never look twice at me or the organization I represent, assuming it's nothing but a club for Luddites, afraid of technology and more interested in scraping up a few pennies here and there than in actually turning a profit.

You shouldn't assume from the name that organization is really about representing authors. In this case, though, they do not seem to be astroturf. If you check out their "talking points" they seem not to know the difference between scanning and publishing nor the difference between searching and publishing.

'The lawsuit claims that Google's scanning and digitizing of library books as a part of the Google Print Project constitutes "massive copyright infringement".,
-----
"It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied."
-----
"Contact: Paul Aiken
staff@authorsguild.org

NEW YORK -- The Authors Guild and a Lincoln biographer, a children's book author, and a former Poet Laureate of the United States filed a class action suit today in federal court in Manhattan against Google over its unauthorized scanning and copying of books through its Google Library program."
-----
The last quote above from this link:

http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citin g.htm

They seem to be claiming that it is the actuallcopying that is infringing.

all the best,

drew
--
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drnippers
Hanging Our At Nippers
Carries a Creative Commons BY-SA License

Then I saw this: http://www.authorsguild.org/

Authors Guild Sues Google, Citing "Massive Copyright Infringement"

Class Action Settlement Amended to Cover Amazon.com and Highbeam

Supreme Court Backs Copyright Holders in Grokster Decision

New Judgment Filed Against Agent; Guild Seeks Information from Clients

Fox News Drops Suit Against Franken

Amazon didn't seek the approval of the authors of the books that have the "Search Inside" feature enabled when they did this a while back, they had the publishers (Who coincidently weren't on the best legal ground with the authors who were also threatening suit against Amazon for the program)

Google isn't the bad guy, the Author's Guild is. There are many ways to make money in the book business, for an author and used book sales aren't among them, and that's the main problem that the Author's Guild has had with both Amazon and Google for nearly the past year.

The author's I've talked to over the past few months have been quite pleased with extra attention that they may receieve due to this program, and that they have recieved from the Amazon one, it's allowed them to open up to people who never would have read a single page of their books and their quite enthusiastic about it. Not only that, according to the Author's Guild themselves at http://www.authorsguild.org/?article=79 they've concluded any advertisements that you may see on Google Print, their revenue will be shared with the publisher of the book, who will then be obligated to share it with the author. An author who may have not sold a book, found a reader, however he will likely still get paid simply because someone glanced at it.

The Author's Guild still states to this day that the publisher's don't have the permission to allow any company digitize their works online, even for a sales based website (Which would promote your book and give the user an easy option for puchasing a copy, a used one even! It's possible, and they don't like that). Amazon is still doing it, Google will likely still do it simply because in the end, the publishers love the idea. With little effort they grab an entire new revenue stream, and so do the authors, especially with google, even if they don't sell a thing.

Although Bezos claimed that the AG "is the same organization that from time to time has advocated charging public libraries royalties on books they loan out," (from news.com.com)

the A.G. website has a slightly different story. Apparently the A.G. did investigate government-sponsored royalties, but funding issues and higher-priority concerns for the A.G. have halted their efforts.

I find it interesting that the A.G. promotes such a system, described as "...a small government-funded royalty paid to authors of books borrowed from libraries." I mean, how could you determine who gets royalties without keeping track of how many times each item gets checked out? Wouldn't that raise serious privacy concerns, not to mention issues of fraud and checkout-padding for certain books?

And then who gets to put media in the library? I mean I could put together some pamphlets about linux or FOSS, and then give them to my local library to put on the shelf. If my friends and I check them out (for free) every few days, we can get money back, right?

What would we do with websites? People coming into the library are increasingly doing so to access the Internet (especially in lower-income areas where most people do not have access at home). If someone does research online and finds good information on Wikipedia.org, shouldn't Wikipedia get some money for that? Who is to say that Britannica deserves royalties for its 3year-old Encyclopedia but Wikipedia doesn't deserve them for its own upkeep of hardware and bandwidth?

If this happens I can see people forming new "free libraries" -- not free for borrowing, but free from any monitoring or recording of who checked out what, when. I thought up a couple of neat ways to do this a while back as a way to 'get around' terms in the PATRIOT Act -- generally including public/private keypairs and money held in escrow (in the event that the materials were not returned). It would be a shame if people felt forced to go out and implement something like this.

Boy, those greedy Authors Guild bastards are going to love this one. Just imagine a whole world of people reading used books...... And not paying for them!!

I wonder how long it will be before these bookcrossing people are accused of piracy for their philanthropy...

It is also interesting to note that the greedy people in this case have a .org URL, while the philanthropists have a .com URL.

It's KIND of like the RIAA, but not completely. First off, few authors make that much money off their books to begin with. Secondly, it's not like they are 'banning' this (the sale/resale of used books or the sharing of books), they are just suggesting that the authors link to a different website so that the author can still make money. It's not like the publishers are saying to the public 'you can't sell used books or share books'... It's not like they are giving the books some 'weird license' about how you use the book either. As far as they care, you can use it to prop up your couch.
Plus, in my opinion the Authors Guild represents the 'creative talent' of writing more, the authors, not the publishers, while (in my opinion) the RIAA seems to represent the business side of the music industry (the corporations such as BMG, virgin, sony, etc...) and not as much 'the artists'. Think of the Authors Guild as more of a 'union'. Compare The Authors Guild and The RIAA.

Still, I can't help but be reminded of This comic.

Hey, if it's really pissing you guys off, make it a point to only buy used books from these guys (if you want their books at all, that is).

The letter merely requests that Amazon change its policy and makes moral arguments why Amazon ought to voluntarily change its policy. There is no threat nor invocation of lawyers or copyright law. Merely an appeal to Amazon's good will and community spirit.

This is an exemplary practice and should be encouraged at a time when most businesses call the lawyers and issue threats without making any attempt to speak with the other party human to human.

The letter merely requests that Amazon change its policy and makes moral arguments why Amazon ought to voluntarily change its policy. There is no threat nor invocation of lawyers or copyright law. Merely an appeal to Amazon's good will and community spirit.

This is an exemplary practice and should be encouraged at a time when most businesses call the lawyers and issue threats without making any attempt to speak with the other party human to human.

We understand that Amazon wishes to provide customers with all manner of services including the ability to buy and sell used books. However, as a leader in the bookselling industry, Amazon's sales practices can have a significantly deleterious effect on new book sales. If your aggressive promotion of used book sales becomes popular among Amazon's customers, this service will cut significantly into sales of new titles, directly harming authors and publishers.

I see. It's okay for people to buy and sell used books, as long as they're not market leaders.

In legal cases involving copyright/trademark infringement, it's generally understood that a company can't credibly raise a fuss over one case of infringement if they've knowingly overlooked it repeatedly in the past. I think the same principle should apply here. They've allowed public libraries to loan out books for decades, and small used book stores to sell titles for almost as long.

Raising a fuss now just because a market leader wants to sell both new *and* used books side-by-side is likely to fall on deaf ears.