$125 Million Settlement In Authors Guild v. Google

James Gleick writes "Authors, publishers, and Google are announcing a huge settlement deal today in their lawsuits over the scanning of millions of copyrighted books in library collections. Google has agreed to a huge payout for books that were scanned without permission, but now they'll be allowed to scan the books legitimately. Most important, they'll be able to put millions of books online, including those still in copyright — not just for searching and not just in snippets. There is a groundbreaking new licensing system meant to make the books as widely available as possible while protecting the authors' copyrights and enabling them to share in the revenue. Some will differ, but personally I think this is a wonderful outcome, for readers and for authors alike."

Comments

It's easier to say "sorry" than ask permission...

[SupplyMission]

This may have been Google's strategy all along.

Step 1: start scanning and distributing copyrighted books without permission.

Step 2: writers and publishers get pissed off and sue.

Step 3: settle and obtain permission to go even further.

It worked. Now Google will have control over electronic access to a massive amount of printed material.

This may be just a silly conspiracy theory. But on the other hand would a company like Google, with massive financial and legal resources, naively embark on a blatant copyright infringement project? Not likely; it's obvious they had a strategy in mind from the beginning.

show me the money

[chromakey]

And where is the money for this settlement going? Is it actually going to go to some authors who had their books scanned or is the majority going to the lawyers and the guild itself?

If it were up to me, yes

[davidwr]

I'm not the grandparent poster, but if it were up to me, copyrights would last less than the average human lifetime.

To paraphrase the early United States Congresses, "nobody will ever need more than 28 years of exclusive rights." On average we live longer now so 28 years is a bit short in today's terms.

If it were up to me, the maximum term of copyright protection would be somewhere between 50 years and the the average expected lifespan of a 4 year old at the time the work was created. Where in between? We should have a national discussion on this not controlled by special interests to determine it.

Why age 4? 1) works created by kids under that age generally more "play" than "creative," and generally have very little market value, and 2) it removes infant mortality from the equation.

I would require that after the first 10-20 years or so, the public gets a non-controlling financial interest in the copyright: You can renew copyrights in 10- to 20-year increments, but with each increment you have to promise to forward an increasingly-higher percentage of any royalties to the national treasury. Royalties previously paid that extend into the renewal period would require a pro-rated payment to the treasury as well. You would of course have the option to not renew and let your work fall into the public domain.

Going forward, works re-published 10-20 years after creation which are legally published but without a (c) mark are presumed to be in the public domain unless the publisher can show it was done in error. Today's automatic copyright-on-creation would still be in play, but they would expire after 10-20 years if not renewed. To protect existing works and contracts based on those works, the "new regime" would only apply to works created after a certain date. I don't like the current regime's long terms but messing with it with a blunt instrument like imposing a new regime on all existing works introduces a whole host of problems. It's far better to solve the orphan works and other problems with a more finely-tuned solution.

Re:If it were up to me, yes

[theaveng]

You're dead. What do you care where/how your music is used? Besides, it's a sad fact that if "evil corporations" did not use 200-300-400 year old music, a lot of that stuff would be forgotten by all by a few college professors and music historians.

Those 30 or 60 second ads have the benefit of keeping those ancient works "alive" in the minds of millions, rather than falling into disuse.

Re:If it were up to me, yes

[Jason Levine]

I definitely agree that we need a national discussion on this. Unfortunately, the idea of Public Domain seems to be dead in many people's minds. They just don't see why someone's "property" (a book they wrote) should be "taken away from them by the government" after X years. They just don't understand the importance of the Public Domain. So I think we need discussion, but also education as to why a strong Public Domain is good for everyone. (Also, education on why copyright terms are limited and the government isn't "taking away" a person's work by having that work move to the Public Domain.)

As for the specifics, I'm more in favor of a simpler method of copyright: Going back to a 14-20 year copyright term plus a one-time, optional 14-20 year extension. The initial term would be automatic. So if I post something on my blog, it is copyrighted. However, in 14-20 years (assuming I don't renew the copyright), you can take that blog post and publish it in a book titled "500 Different Blog Posts In The Public Domain."

Also, when it comes to existing works, Congress was more than happy to extend the copyright on existing works when they lengthened copyright (even going so far as removing stuff from the Public Domain). Therefore, I think that the new terms should apply to existing works also. I am willing to compromise a bit, though. First of all, all existing works over 5 years old could be assumed to be renewed. Second of all, the movement to the Public Domain would be phased in over time starting with the older works. So in Year 2 (assuming a 1 year grace period), works from 1922 - 1931 would enter Public Domain. In Year 3, works from 1932 - 1941 would go into Public Domain, etc. This way, companies would have time to adapt to the new system.

In addition, they would be encouraged to wring what money they could from their old works. You can bet studios would be raiding their vaults and releasing DVDs of many of their old films and TV Shows. Record labels would be releasing "Best Of" CDs from artists who hadn't been published in decades. It could actually turn out to be quite a boon for the RIAA/MPAA. Sure, they would fight tooth and nail like they did against the VCR, but in the end they would find a way to make money from it.

Electronic searching, pring reading

[eagle52997]

I'm a graduate student and I love that Google has many books available online. I have searched and found many books of interest to my research because I was able to actually skim pertinent sections, rather than having to guess based on the title and who the author was. Then, once I found these books, I checked out the print copies to read. I still find the print easier to read than the electronic, but may be the last of a dying breed.

Re:Electronic searching, pring reading

[PieSquared]

You are certainly not the last of a dying breed in this respect - the vast majority of people prefer paper to an LCD screen. I know personally I read way too much stuff online, but I haven't yet been able to bring myself to get through more then a chapter of a book.

On the other hand, by all (most) accounts, e-paper is just as good as regular paper. If you find yourself going to a library rather then reading something off e-paper in 5-10 years, *then* you'll be the last of a dying breed. Personally I'm gunning for a second or third generation kindle or sony e-book reader.

Seems to me like we need cash cows...

[tjstork]

You know, i would be tempted to agree with you if only for the practical political point that ending copyrights would gut the finances of liberalism and I happen to be a Republican.

But...

Um, just having a quick look at the finances of the USA, and I have to ask, what exactly is someone allowed to make any money in this new world. Oil companies are not allowed to earn half the profits of apple, coal companies are not allowed to operate, car companies can't make money... seems to me we have plenty of companies not making money doing something and perhaps that, we might be better off if someone did make money.

Perhaps the best way to accomodate IP longevity is to have a copyright property tax. So... if you hold the copyright to a work, you either pay the tax or put the work into the PD. That way, if something is genuinely valuable, like Lord of the Rings, then, it can still produce income and benefit the economy and be accessible through normal markets, but, the rest of the stuff won't be locked up, away from people's view, like old movies or books out of print.

You obviously weren't a psychiatry student

[davidwr]

A psychiatry student would've read the professor's book, shared it with a few classmates, had some of the classmates turn in papers that appeared to be the opposite of the teacher's teaching and some write papers that conformed to the teacher's teachings, while at the same time writing "real" papers with their own ideas. At the end of the term, after grades were announced, all students would turn in their real papers and the psychiatry student would write a paper about the experiment and submit it for publication.

Of course, he would get permission from the campus human-studies ethics committee first.

Re:I can has source material?

[SatanicPuppy]

If they wanted their writings available for free, then why would they bother to publish in the first place?

Content creators deserve some rights to their works.

Re:I can has source material?

[Matheus]

OK.. slow down a bit:

We are not telling the authors to give all of their books for free (nor work in dark dank dungeons with burly leather clad masters whipping them into submission)

The issue is part of the complicated world we are moving into. In the past a work had severe cost to bring to the people and so the business model made as much money as possible from distribution over a short period of time and then those resources were moved to a newer piece of material.
Those books in their remaining form dropped in price significantly leading to an excellent used book market for extremely cheap (or free at your library) spreading the knowledge to the masses.

Now those costs are high in the short term but the work can now be distributed extremely cheaply AND indefinitely.. The issue we've run into with just about everything is publishers trying to now keep their old entry level pricing going forever with a perpetual hold on the material. Think all the fun battles with MPAA/RIAA this is the same thing ONLY with the help of a massive "donation" by Google (services and settlement $$$) plus a very solid outlook on the part of the literary big business (at least the educational institutions involved) we get a MUCH better solution that benefits all involved.

I know someday (maybe/probably even now in the dark) Google's power will corrupt as power always does but for the time being it is enjoyable to watch what they may accomplish trying to follow a "Do no evil" philosophy.

Sometimes it's better to apologize...

[SharpFang]

Sometimes it's better to apologize than ask permission.

My bet is that if Google nicely asked the authors guild for permission for just what the settlement resulted in, before taking any steps, they would be outright denied. Only by first -doing- and only then settling the permission matters, not only they got the desired result, they got it months ahead of time.

Reality plagiarizing fiction?

[praetorblue]

When I read the summary, I thought "Hmm, that sounds VERY SIMILAR to a passage I read in the sci-fi novel 'Rainbow's End' on the subway this morning." In that book (by Vernor Vinge), libraries of books are being scanned and destroyed so that the knowledge can be moved online. So I clicked on the link in the summary, and... wth... I see the name: "Roy Blount". A key character involved in protesting the bringing-online of books in Rainbow's End is named "William Blount". What's the chance that there are two Blounts -- one real one fake -- who are both working on the same problem? This is totally bizarro.

Re:I can has source material?

[Chyeld]

>>>Otherwise, all that was shown was a brief snippet of text surrounding the search term.

Not true. I've read whole books on google. If it had been fair-use such as a single page, then you're right, it would have been okay. But google presented searchers with virtually the entire book.

Which books? Because if they did I guarantee you it was because they had the right to. Either the book was in the public domain or the rights to present it that way were already obtained.

Name the books, otherwise, I call bullshit. I've used the service and I know it only provides snippets unless it has negotiated the rights to more.

From Google:

How are book previews limited?
Many of the books you can preview on Google Book Search are still in copyright, and are displayed with the permission of publishers and authors. You can browse these "limited preview" titles just as you would in a bookstore, but you won't be able to see more pages than the copyright holder has made available.

When you've accessed the maximum number of pages allowed for a book, any remaining pages will be omitted from your preview. You can order full copies of any book using the "Buy this book" links to the right of the preview page.