Slashdot Mirror
$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."
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.
In all fairness to Christopher Tolkien, at least he had an active role in his father's estate and actually worked to produce some of the wealth. It's not like he sat on his hands and just let the checks roll in and any Tolkien fan should have a bit of admiration and offer up a little thanks for Christopher and his desire to see his father's work get to the masses. Without Christopher these works would either have been lost or found their way into a private collectors collection for a high price. He certainly didn't need to be as responsible as he is.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
When you steal a book, and keep it permanently without compensation, that makes you no better than the Plantation Masters. IMHO.
Wow. Hyperbole anyone? Last I checked we are not:
In case you weren't aware, you can dislike a particular viewpoint without making strained comparisons to slave holders (or any of the other favorites, e.g. Nazis).
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Google doesn't take video content for Youtube - users submit video content. Enormous difference.
If they wanted their writings available for free, then why would they bother to publish in the first place?
Cory Doctorow answered you question in the forward to Little Brother far better than I can.
Free Martian Whores!