Slashdot Mirror
"Authors Guild" Skims Half of Google Book-Rights Settlement
Miracle Jones writes "A recent memo from the 'Author's Guild' to the writers and publishers that it supposedly represents shows that only $45 million of the $125 million dollar settlement with Google will be paid to writers, and that the most a writer can receive for a book is $300. Many people speculate that Google's monopoly over all of out-of-copyright works will result in a brutal monopoly that will hurt both writers and readers, and that the 'Author's Guild' had no right to make the deal in the first place. How will it all shake down? Should writers be paid at all for their work? Will Google be any good at the publishing racket?"
Actually, I think writers should be able to get paid for their work, just as others do... work, as in labor. And only paid once.
The first reply makes it quite clear that Google cannot have a "monopoly" over anything free. Paying for it unnecessarily and voluntarily was a kind gesture on Google's part.
If Google is to be lambasted for "only" paying up to $300 per work, then what's to be said of Project Gutenburg, which has been giving away text of out of copyright books for years, and has paid the authors absolutely nothing?
What's to be made of it all is TFA is a misguided, biased to the point of fictionalizing of details, underhanded attempt to foist tinfoil hat quality editorializing on /. in the guise of news. Had the MafIAA attempted to collect on out-of-copyright works, they'd be laughed out of court and rightfully humiliated in the press. That's the kind of treatment TFA deserves.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Out of print or out of copyright? There is a very important difference. I thought Google Books was only giving full text for books that are out of copyright, and therefore they can do whatever they want and there is no consent required.
I only skimmed the actual agreement, but it looks like Google is claiming the right by default to sell any book that they determine is not "commercially available" (ie out of print), and to pay royalties on that book. The rights holder as the right to opt out of that at any time, but by default Google is claiming that the settlement gives them that right.
IANAL, but I don't see how a settlement of a class action suit AGAINST Google can actually transfer rights to them from class members.
The publishing industry worked very well when the only way you could self-publish was with expensive long offset runs. Nowadays, print on demand is making self-publishing much easier and more affordable. Add to it affordable typesetting/design software, and you have a chance to really crack these cartels.
I recently published my book via a POD publisher (Booksurge). You can see it at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439223084/
I also do micro-runs for wholesale (100 copies of the book at a time).
Interestingly.... I did the entire book design, including the cover, in LaTeX. It came out great. I am extremely happy with the quality that the free software in this area is able to provide. The only few issues are design mistakes I made, and not software limitations (the barcode should be placed differently on the back, etc).
My most recent journal entry includes a follow-up post on advice for people designing books using LaTeX.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
That's the result of a settlement with the class. As soon as the judge certifies the settlement, it applies to both parties, including the class, and can bind members of the class from subsequent litigation.
The judge's certification is supposed to verify that the various obligations of the settlement are in the fiduciary interest of the class and the plaintiff, to prevent the class lawyers from writing a settlement which only benefits themselves, for instance.
So the question here is: is the settlement in the fiduciary interest of the class members or did the judge make an error in certifying the settlement?
Moral: authors (unless you are established) just can't win. Makes you wonder why we bother.
My web domain.
The authors tend to be dead and it's their grandchildren receiving this extra money.
Whenever a Disney property is headed towards copyright expiration, the copyright term gets extended anyway.
Right you are. Copyright holders in the 19th century were indeed very much against the library movement and tried to stop it. But the doctrine of first sale trumped their objections, just as it did when the movie studios objected to video rental. Copy machines in libraries also produced an uproar, but fair use doctrine keeps them cranking.
Digital distribution was a game changer, since digital media is usually copied and not merely rented, lent or sold when it is distributed. (And the copyright holder always strongly retains the right of duplication.) Many copyright holders, especially corporate ones, have used main force to attempt to hold onto that prerogative, but the slow demise of DRM demonstrates that they have conceded that they need to lower their margin and make profits from volume, while accepting that customers will do some duplication -- perhaps even to the right holder's benefit as a form of PR -- but diluting their perceived rights nonetheless. In the end I think that companies that find a way to benefit from viral distribution will win out.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
people who don't shop at corporate bookstores, and restrict their business to small bookstores that offer much better service, friendlier environments, usually more eclectic selection, etc. I like my bookstore, and I shop there instead of going online because of the value added by the owners.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
I've been a published author of computer books for almost 15 years, writing 12 books for several major publishers. All of my books have been scanned and put online by Google without my consent.
The first I heard of the Author's Guild was when Google sent me a notice about this matter and offered me practically nothing for the 'right' to steal my books. I do not have a contract with the Authors Guild and did not give the Author's Guild any right to speak for me. I'd imagine most authors didn't authorize them, either.
Let's put it another way. Cost of a paperback in 1980 was about $2. We've had about 3.5% annual inflation from 1980 to 2008, so the cost of a paperback today should be just under $5. Instead, they're pushing $10.
If that's not enough, the costs of typesetting, printing, managing inventories, and such have all dropped dramatically thanks to technological advances. And there's room for a whole lot more savings, with electronic paper and readers steadily improving, and the Internet's potential for reducing distribution costs to near zero. Even without using the Internet and electronic readers, the costs have fallen. If some of the savings had been passed on to us, a paperback should cost much less than $5. Where did all these savings go? To the authors? Certainly not to the consumers.
Yeah, publishers are greedy. A little competition would sort them out.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"