Slashdot Mirror

2) don't allow Google to be the only one to do it.

Where does it say no-one else is allowed to do this? Section 2.4 of the Agreement explicitly says any rights granted to Google are non-exclusive, and copyright holders can happily authorise any other party to do the same things.

It's wrong to let a single private company break everybody's copyrights and punish everyone else who wants to do it.

You mean, like the CRIA, and their "unpaid list" (which got settled by them paying a fraction of the owed royalties, with no penalties and no liability, while they simultaneously sued others for punitive damages many thousands of times greater)?

And there was no "good faith" involved there - the vast majority of copyright holders were not only alive and well, but actively demanding their unpaid royalties.

Who says they are EXCLUSIVE to google?

Google does. Read the proposed settlement.
They aren't negotiating for everyone, only themselves.

> As such, the state has a responsibility to make sure the settlement is fair for those slack members of the class who haven't bothered to turn up to court yet. ...and in this case, to protect members of the class that don't exist yet.

Only if you have a time machine. Books published after January 5, 2009 are not included in the Amended Settlement.

Another in the long list of precedent-setting aspects of this case is that the settlement for a past bad action (Google's wholesale copying of others' copyrighted works) is being applied to future members of the class, and indemnifying Google against future transgressions. Let's say it again: as part of Google admitting that what they did is wrong, they get a free pass to do it forever in the future. How messed up is that.

Strange conclusions can come about when you start from an incorrect premise that this applies to future books.

In addition, nobody else can follow in their footsteps and compete with Google in this new space unless they also wholesale infringe others' copyrights, convince someone to file a class action lawsuit, get it certified, then manage to cut a magic deal with the class's lawyers to give them a free pass on future lawbreaking.

Except they set up a non-exclusive registry: Rights granted to Google and the Participating Libraries are non-exclusive only, and Rightsholders have every right to authorize, through the Registry or otherwise, any individual or entity, including direct competitors of Google, to use their works in any way, including ways identical to Google’s and the Participating Libraries’ authorized uses.

If you want to spread FUD, please try a little harder. There is still stuff not to like in the settlement, but it's not the easily disproved stuff you bring up.

> As such, the state has a responsibility to make sure the settlement is fair for those slack members of the class who haven't bothered to turn up to court yet. ...and in this case, to protect members of the class that don't exist yet.

Only if you have a time machine. Books published after January 5, 2009 are not included in the Amended Settlement.

Another in the long list of precedent-setting aspects of this case is that the settlement for a past bad action (Google's wholesale copying of others' copyrighted works) is being applied to future members of the class, and indemnifying Google against future transgressions. Let's say it again: as part of Google admitting that what they did is wrong, they get a free pass to do it forever in the future. How messed up is that.

Strange conclusions can come about when you start from an incorrect premise that this applies to future books.

In addition, nobody else can follow in their footsteps and compete with Google in this new space unless they also wholesale infringe others' copyrights, convince someone to file a class action lawsuit, get it certified, then manage to cut a magic deal with the class's lawyers to give them a free pass on future lawbreaking.

Except they set up a non-exclusive registry: Rights granted to Google and the Participating Libraries are non-exclusive only, and Rightsholders have every right to authorize, through the Registry or otherwise, any individual or entity, including direct competitors of Google, to use their works in any way, including ways identical to Google’s and the Participating Libraries’ authorized uses.

If you want to spread FUD, please try a little harder. There is still stuff not to like in the settlement, but it's not the easily disproved stuff you bring up.

using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.

you'll get notice, google will send you the greater of 63% of Revenues Earned in Google Book Search or $60. At that point you can just take your money, and either let it keep coming, or opt out and send your book back into obscurity.

As I indicated, the previous article does not cover non-exclusivity, but no part of the settlement that I can find indicates that Google is receiving exclusive rights. I don't see any articles claiming that anymore either. Another organization could, in theory, negotiate a similar deal. but then the organization would still need to digitize all the content, so licensing digitized content is more feasible. Forcing Google to license the digitized content considerably increases potential access by other organizations. (After all, scanning this many books is not cheap.

I never claimed that it was equivalent to being public domain. My post addressed "sole rights," i.e. exclusivity. Google does not really "control" the works, given that the agreement is not exclusive, they are forced to license the digital content, and an independent fiduciary is responsible for decisions regarding orphans.

Note that the opt-out issue applies to in-copyright, out-of-print books only. Turning on preview for in-copyright, in-print is opt-in, and out-of-copyright books are by definition in the public domain.

The agreement pertains only to orphaned books, ones without a known copyright owner.

Actually I think the Grandparent comment is more accurate; the agreement is for all persons and entities that, as of January 5, 2009, own a U.S. copyright interest in one or more Books or Inserts
And the books google will be allowed to sell without opting out is all out of print books, not unknown copyrights:
http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en#q29

But google is paying those rights holder a pretty good sum, 63% of Google's revenue, minimum of $60. With percentages like that, the only thing a author is likely to be pissed about, is that their publisher could start printing the books again and they would be stuck getting the less than $1 per book, that is currently typical for even known authors (I am assuming google charges more than $1 for the e-books they scan.)

The agreement pertains only to orphaned books, ones without a known copyright owner.

Actually I think the Grandparent comment is more accurate; the agreement is for all persons and entities that, as of January 5, 2009, own a U.S. copyright interest in one or more Books or Inserts
And the books google will be allowed to sell without opting out is all out of print books, not unknown copyrights:
http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en#q29

But google is paying those rights holder a pretty good sum, 63% of Google's revenue, minimum of $60. With percentages like that, the only thing a author is likely to be pissed about, is that their publisher could start printing the books again and they would be stuck getting the less than $1 per book, that is currently typical for even known authors (I am assuming google charges more than $1 for the e-books they scan.)

ALL books available for searching (aka, reading in their entirety if you want)

True, if you want to spend most of your time reading a paragraph, searching for the next paragraph then repeating. Google put in limits, so even this is only working if using tor, and deleting cookies.

inevitable lawsuits can be ignored.

since google pays the authors, of out of print books, more ( 63% of profits) than publishers typically pay those with in print books. Who is going to sue, if the publishers are on board? Granted this deal was in reaction to a lawsuit, with both sides less than 100% confident of the outcome, so each side gave some. That's actually how the system is supposed to work, to find a reasonable middle ground.

distribute it as much as possible without paying you a single cent

actually google pays you * 63% of Revenues Earned in Google Book Search
And a minimum of $63, that is until you complain, then they stop selling it unless they reach a new agreement with you.

This agreement does not apply to future books; I wish people would stop spreading this falsehood. It's in TFFAQ:

The Settlement covers Books only if they were published on or before January 5, 2009. Books published after January 5, 2009 are not included in the Settlement

I don't know how it can be any clearer than that. A lot of people are going around saying exactly what they think this agreement means w.r.t works that are not orphaned, new works, opting out, and exclusiveness. However a lot of what is being said isn't true if you look up the original references, but that is lost in the internet echo-box.

The FSF should know better than to take what is written in the media as accurate.

Here's the settlement: http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Final-Notice-of-Class-Action-Settlement.pdf

Simply put, if you're affected, and you want to, you can put in a claim form and get some money from Google.. on an on-going basis. If you don't want, nothing changes. You have all the same (insanely restrictive) rights under copyright law.

Anything else you have heard is bullshit.

Does this Settlement cover Books published in 2009?

The Settlement covers Books only if they were published on or before January 5, 2009. Books published after January 5, 2009 are not included in the Settlement. Further, the Settlement only covers Inserts that are contained in Books, government works or public domain books that were published on or before January 5, 2009.

From http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118722&hl=en#book

Book

A "Book" is a written or printed work that meets the following three conditions on or before January 5, 2009:

        * It was published or distributed to the public or made available on sheets of paper bound together in hard copy form for public access under the authorization of the work's U.S. copyright owner; and

        * It was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, UNLESS the work is not a "United States work" under the U.S. Copyright Act, in which case such registration is not required; and

        * It is subject to a U.S. copyright interest (either through ownership, joint ownership, or an exclusive license) implicated by a use authorized, or for which compensation could be payable, by the Settlement.

clear sources

Or as clear as it gets, anyway. What it looks like is that an association of five or six publishers got together and sued google, who is putting over USD$15M into a fund to pay out authors who claim their piece of a licensing deal for their content brokered without their consent. It is extremely similar to the way that royalties are "paid" on music, and is probably the first step in organizing an RIAA/MPAA-like association of major book publishers which will be used, as the RIAA and MPAA are, to exert unfair influence over the market.

The settlement agreement

Maybe. Probably a better question is why are we allowing google to continue doing this at all? Shouldn't it be an opt-in service rather than opt-out? Shouldn't it have always been that way?

I'll give you several arguments to the contrary:

1. On this page, linked to from the NY Times article, Google denies that it has done anything illegal. Google says that it comes under the fair use exception to copyright. Under U.S. law, fair use is based on several criteria. Google argues that their use matches enough of these criteria well enough that it qualifies as fair use. IANAL, but I'd say they're probably right.
2. The part of the U.S. Constitution establishing copyright says, "The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Note that the purpose of copyright is not to promote profitable business, it's to promote the progress of science and the arts. The vast majority of all books ever published are now out of print, so it seems likely that the vast majority of the books google is scanning are out of print. If a book is unobtainable, I don't think it's serving the purpose of promoting the progress of science and the arts.
3. If the vast majority of the books google is scanning are out of print, then the author is typically making zero income from the book. That means the author has nothing to lose. In fact the author may be dead, or there may be no way to contact the author. (The normal way you contact an author is by sending mail care of their publisher. Not gonna work if the book has been out of print since 1925.) If an author's book is still in print, then the publisher can just systematically handle the opting in or opting out. They can opt out for every single title they have in print, or they can contact authors and ask them what they want.
4. Google argues that this is the modern equivalent of a card catalog. They're right.

So, is google going to have an ad-based way to read books online for free?

No. The article has a link to this page, which explains that Google is only "scanning their Books, creating an electronic database and displaying short excerpts without the permission of the copyright holders."

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.