Slashdot Mirror
Google's Struggle To Reach Authors — of Every Book Ever Written
eldavojohn writes "There's no lack of news surrounding the settlement of Google's controversial move to digitize books — but how do you even start this endeavor? A New York Times story reveals the obstacles they face just to get the word out that they want to settle with publishers and authors everywhere. They turned to a world-wide ad campaign to start the $125 million settlement process and they're spending $7 million to $8 million in paper print ads and telephone hot-lines (handling 80+ languages) to reach as many people as possible. From the article: 'We looked at how many books were published in various areas and we knew from the plaintiffs and Google that 30 percent were published in the US, 30 percent in industrialized countries. The rest of the world is the rest.' That's quite the herculean task! Hopefully Google's efforts in digitizing books will breathe new life and revenue into authors and publishers the world over."
So, is google going to have an ad-based way to read books online for free?
Google's business plan
I hear that it might be kind of hard to reach that Moses guy ...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
We (as a society) need to be careful about digitizing everything. I'm excited about the technology, but the idea that a few EMP's could destroy the majority of humanity's work in the last X years is unsettling.
In theory, this is great. Make all books accessible to everyone. Create new interest in reading. Create a credible e-publishing standard. Maybe even spur interest in e-book devices. I just hope this doesn't backfire by somehow falling into the hands of a company like Microsoft, Adobe, or Amazon or it'll have the exact opposite effect.
mmmm...forbidden donut
As finding two of every kind of animal and getting them onto a boat.
It'd take divine intervention...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Google that 30 percent were published in the U.S., 30 percent in industrialized countries
So does this mean that the US isn't counted a a industrialized country?
Or that all the books from industrialized countries are from the US.
"that 30 percent were published in the U.S., 30 percent in industrialized countries."
Either the U.S. isn't an industrialized country, or it's the only one on the planet.
"The rest of the world is the rest."
Amazing!
Error 001
Security Scan and Virus Detection do not work with your operating system.
We are moving into a more and more complicated world. In the past, work had great costs to bring to the people, and thus the business model made as much money as possible from distribution over a short period of time before those printing resources were moved to a newer piece of material. Now we're in an age where content costs $0 to bring to the masses but we have a long tail of content of huge value that no one ever sees because bookstores only popularize the hits.
Google has the opportunity to popularize the long tail of publishing. This is such great news.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
There has to be 125 million authors out there.
Will the Google guys have to hand write 125 million checks for one dollar similar to what Steve Martin had to do in The Jerk?
This will be awful for technical books, because Google's search algorithm ignores special characters, like the dollar sign, and Google has no intention of fixing this.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Hopefully Google will realize that most everything published had, as a condition of publication, the loss of the author's rights to that work either temporarily or permanently. If Google really wants to digitize books en masse, why not start by killing the concept of the exclusive contract and the equally nefarious "work for hire" clauses that are cropping up around the world... Meaning that NO MATTER WHAT an author retains the right to his/her own work. Call it the "It's Mine, Dammit" Doctrine. Because I think it's easier to convince an individual author of the social benefits of digitization than it is to convince some f*ck in a suit. If you want an example of this -- find some work that's totally void of any social benefit -- say a coupon booklet or one of those pamplets sitting in waiting rooms around the world. Now, try and get permission to reproduce it... understanding you've picked the most useless thing you could find to duplicate.
Better yet, let's just tell governments around the world to go to hell, and start digitizing this stuff on our own and making it available for free, and on page one, write "In Memory of Corporate F*cktards Everywhere". But that would be too inflammatory, so someone with slightly more tact should write that page. ;)
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Its only supposed to delay posts by 30seconds not a few years. /. must be out to get you.
...Now we're in an age where content costs $0 to bring to the masses but we have a long tail of content of huge value that no one ever sees because bookstores only popularize the hits. Google has the opportunity to popularize the long tail of publishing. This is such great news.
Ah, depends on how you look at it. There's a whole lot of awful crapola that justifies itself sitting on the "long tail" (or ass-end) of publishing.
If you need further proof, do a quick Google search for the word "blog".
"A New York Times story reveals the obstacles they face just to get the word out..."
Too bad Google doesn't run a really popular website. If they did, they could just put a note up on the front page or something.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
No, you're right. Slashdot doesn't care. Because its supposed to work that way. No velvet gloves here. No sir -e. Ham fists not only solve problems, but can be turned into delicious sandwiches. If you want something done right the first time, you do it right the first time with hands of pork.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
won't we have as much trouble getting useful content from Google's collection of books as we do from its collection of websites?
Google made it EASY to search websites. It's now possible for anybody to publish a website in a sea of noise, and get noticed, provided someone is looking for their content. This was impossible before google.
Given that we have tools to organize, having an over-abundance of something is a healthy sign. It means people are being stimulated to provide, and consumers are consuming. If the consumers AREN'T consuming, then the system will naturally find a balance where mostly only consumables are being provided.
Right now (via tv, cinema, book publishers, record labels, radio, etc) we have a system where consumables are being shoved down throats to make a buck. Kinda sucks, don't you think?
I can't wait till this archaic model of distribution goes the way of the dinosaur.
Google's Struggle To Reach Authors -- of Every Book Ever Written
They're going to have a hard time reaching Mark Twain and Bill Shakespeare!
Free Martian Whores!
No, you're right. Slashdot doesn't care. Because its supposed to work that way. No velvet gloves here. No sir -e. Ham fists not only solve problems, but can be turned into delicious sandwiches. If you want something done right the first time, you do it right the first time with hands of pork.
Mmmmm... hands of pork.
...do everything! He's got a financial meltdown and some thorny foreign policy issues to deal with. There's no sense in bothering him with this kind of trivia (yet). :-)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If anyone can find a good medium, Google can.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Do they assume the settlement with the authors guild is a global settlement ?
The authors guild is strictly US, so even if you assume the guild can sign away these rights for its members then it is still only valid for US writers.
Get ready for a zillion other lawsuits Google.
Yeah, but then they'd have to get rid of the "Privacy" link again so they'd still have 28 words on the front page.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
fuck google
they are satan
bow before your almighty master
american filth.
Speaking as an author, I do not want my works digitized by Google because it screws me out of the ability to sell digital copies myself.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
But we don't. We have effectively perpetual copyright, so we need as many holes as possible poked in it.
If copyright expired 7 years after publication we could talk about strengthening it. Until that happens the answer is a flat no.
Sure google could probably make me more money through exposure that I might not otherwise have, but shouldn't that be my choice?
It is your choice to opt out.
If you don't want the world to read your stuff in the first place, don't publish it.
You can't take the sky from me...
And only IE6 users without Google toolbar would see it, because others use search plugins and never go to the front page...
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
Multiply misses you!
Some libraries I have access to offers similar services... But I don't like them and can't really use them, because of the DRM...
:)
Is DRM really the only solution here... ? Should we accept evil* like DRM!
Seriously, can't I just promise to be nice... and delete the file...
Or maybe implement the DRM in javascript, so that it runs everywhere, (and is easily cracked).
Is DRM really acceptable here?
* Yes, my world is very simple, everything related to DRM, Microsoft or security through obscurity is evil... Google is not all evil, and all free software is good !
I wouldn't call that thing in Pudge's fist a ham. It's more like a bacon bit.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Everyone dreams of a JBOD with all music ever published.
Or something like that..
There is no DRM that works 100%, and if you want an openstandard to make it cross platform it gets even harder since you can't hide your methods anymore.
Someone should state this as a fact, there is no DRM that can work.
Why do you think the author of riverworld recently disappeared?
Everything will be taken away from you.
Alexandria!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I use surfraw, you gui plugin using insensitive clod!
This is Xenophon. I want my motherfuckin' check!
Sorry for cross-posting, but my post in the other thread was buried. It seems that Google is actually trying to do SOME of what I suggested. Here is the original post. Yes, it IS a wall of text, and I do apologize for that, but it is a complicated issue, and I could't really thin it out.
"From a writers perspective, one of the most satisfying aspects of writing is the permanency of putting words to paper. Generations of people will have the opportunity to enjoy your story. It is, in a sense, a little bit of immortality.
Unfortunately, this is all dependent of the availability of your works. At some point in time, a decline in readership limits the revenue a publisher can realize from further print runs of the work. The work eventually falls by the wayside, and is not really available to the public anymore. Aside from the obvious understandable financial goals of Google, I see them simply trying to keep those books available to the public, and future generations. And, yes, I read TFA.
Were things handled equitably? I do not think so. Allow me to explain.
The agreement made with the Author's Guild, by Google, completely leaves the original author out of the loop of negotiation, and thus the legacy of their work. A limited form of reimbursement, a one-time $300 "settlement" serves nobody but Google (well, the Author's Guild DOES make out like Bandits here).
This settlement, I believe, also stains the credibility of Google in the long run. If they plan on future ventures like this, the people with whom they will be dealing will be far less likely to see any altruistic motivation in Google's plans. They had the opportunity to make a huge impression on a lot of people here, and they failed to take advantage of it. I honestly believe there IS some altruism, on Google's part, involved with this case. But for some reason, possibly something as simple as greed, they squandered that opportunity.
They could have done things totally different, and achieved the goals of everyone involved.
Here is how I would have proposed a deal, to the original authors and the Author's guild.
Initially, NO money changes hands. A list of works is assembled, and the actual authors are determined. Both Google and the Author's guild make an honest, diligent attempt to contact the author of each work. If they are not able to be contacted, they are then put in into a category, possibly labeled "dormant". All other authors are contacted and informed of the process of which I am about to explain, and offered an "opt-in". The authors that "opt-in" are then categorized as "Participants", while the ones that do not "opt-in", are are categorized as "non-participants". None of that default "opt-in" bullshit here either. Keep it clean.
So, now we have all the works, categorized into three groups. From here, each group is interacted with differently, by Google.
Lets get the Non-Participants out of the way first, since they will not be discussed further.
Quite simply, Google doesn't make their works available. They receive no compensation from anyone, Google, or the Authors Guild. Their works continue to languish as they have in the past. The authors of these works gain nothing from the process, nor lose anything. The song remains the same, so to speak.
Now, lets discuss the Participants.
Since the authors have been contacted, they are offered a deal with Google, and their decision to "opt-in" is their agreement to the terms that Google and the Author's Guild have made in advance.
Here is how it works.
Google makes the work available, in its entirety(no derivative works), as they see fit, but in accordance with the "opt-in" agreement. Any funds derived from the publishing of the work are divided 3 ways, with proportions agreed to at "opt-in" time. A portion for Google is set aside, say, 80%, a portion for the author is set in a interest bearing trust (19%), and a smaller (the remaining 1%) amount is is set in trust for the Author's Guild.
The portion set aside for Google
Whenever Google does something big like this, the "Do No Evil" manifesto gets brought up. The question then, irrespecitve of profit motive, is: Is this move going to be of net benefit or not?
If Google pull this off, the net impact over the years will be absolutely huge. Ultimately I envisage it resulting in the final shift of the prime medium for creative work from physical to digital.
In 20 years, when people look back at all the physical media we used to hoard (from the context of a society in which nearly everything is transmitted and viewed digitally), I suspect Google's efforts to digitise all printed media will be seen as a very significant milestone.
Not only that; I also imagine it will, over time, play a significant role in reducing the copyright debate to an academic one. I fully expect copyright as it exists today to be obsolete in 50 years, and this project will help in facilitating that cultural change.
Good or evil? It's usually a matter of historical perspective. Key events over the millennia of human history are viewed from the context of a culture that those events shaped; imagine how the holocaust would be viewed, had the Third Reich come to dominate politically and philosophically (I'm absolutely not an apologist - I'm just using an extreme example). It's not just a case of the victor rewriting history - it's about the victor rewriting the future.
Personally, I like what they're doing because I yearn for the future that Google seem to be trying to bring about. Others - authors, artists and copyright lawyers - may feel differently, and I quite understand their position. However, if they're successful, I think even the authors and artists of the future will look back on the attitudes of their historical contemporaries as blinkered and technophobic.
Whatever your opinion on the morality of Google's efforts, there's one thing on which I hope we can agree: Google really do seem to be using their dominant position to effect significant change, not just significant profit. Their success has always been through aggressively dynamic innovation, and I'm grateful for it.
Meta will eat itself
All mediums are scams. Especially happy ones.
Come on... mod me all the way to -1? I thought it was interesting, and even if admittedly off-topic, it was on-topic to the post I replied to.
In fact, I'm not even going to post anonymously, so do your worst, if you must. I'm not trolling or being a jerk, and my karma can stand an off-topic now and then.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Having hard time reaching the authors? Just Google it. Duh.
I mean, if they're being forced to build it anyway...