Questions Linger Over Google Book Rights Registry

We've discussed the fallout from Google's settlement with the Authors Guild a few times already. Now the issue is made pointed again by a Wall Street Journal editorial claiming that the settlement will ruin a functioning copyright system if it is finally ratified, as expected, in June by a federal court. Reader daretoeatapeach writes: "In the US this will establish a Book Rights Registry where authors can opt-in to 63% of the revenues of each book, the rest going to Google. While previously Amazon had cornered the market on e-books, Google's partnership with Sony will create a serious dent: 500,000 books to Amazon's 250,000. Though Google is currently only releasing the books that are in the public domain, they ultimately plan to sell the 7 million e-books they've scanned (and counting). This raises a lot of questions about the future of publishing: Do we want only one company (e.g. Google) controlling access to information? Should publishers get a cut of the money, at least as long as their book is being scanned? Will broader access to trade journals affect their relationship and reliance on libraries? If, in the future, more authors opt out of the traditional publishing model, when will this hit the 'recession-proof' book industry? And has the publishing industry learned any lessons from MP3s?"

Comments

paper

[spandex_panda]

Well I still like paper books. I find it far easier to read if it is printed, I can't even read more than a page or two of a pdf before I print it out... let alone a whole bloody book!

Re:paper

[jsmiith]

That depends on the type of book you are reading. For reference, text searching is indespensable, but for just plain old reading I'll never give up my printed books.

Publish or Perish

[dattaway]

The publisher who makes the effort to put material on the most widely read medium always prevails. Looks like google is doing what the dead tree publishers refuse to do.

Re:Hummm.

[Assmasher]

I'm sure they'll have a 'print on demand' option some day. Google is doing what it always tries to do. Cut out all the middle men, in this case 'publishers.' Now,there are services a publisher provides that will continue to be needed but the 'publishing' business will be changed forever.

Re:Hummm.

[h4rm0ny]

They're doing a bit more than just cutting out the middle men. I'm fine with that if it means that authors can sell directly to their fans without having to go through anther company. But there are big problems with what Google are doing. It's "opt-out" meaning that unless you are careful, Google will start selling your books whether you want them to or not. There are going to be a lot of books Google get their hands on that the author or their agent wouldn't want them to. This particularly applies on the international market. And keep in mind that Google are international. If an author doesn't have rights to a work in the USA for some reason, they'll find Google snapping it up and selling it. Aside from the moral issue of Google selling other people's work unless they take all the necessary steps to stop each work, the effect on the market will be a negative one. You put far, far too much power in the hands of a few small companies.

If you're big enough, YOU get to make the rules?

[KlaymenDK]

Should publishers get a cut of the money, at least as long as their book is being scanned?

Hell yes. How would anything else not be piracy? In fact, maybe skip the publishers but ensure the authors get a cut -- since when is author royalties are an "opt in" thing?

I don't get how Google can get away with what seems to be large-scale professional copyright infringement (and please don't say it's because it's large scale and professional).

This is the way all info should go

[professorguy]

Oh, I see, you've written so many books there's no possible way you can remember them all to fill out a web form for each one.

I'm sorry, if you don't care enough to opt out, then ALL HUMANS SHOULD GET THE INFO. No more of this, "It's mine, you can't have it, I don't care if I'm not using it, I'd rather it was wasted just so I can hoard it."

As long as Google is not the EXCLUSIVE stealer of info, so other companies can swoop in and ALSO distribute unclaimed works, this doesn't make one company too strong.

I applaud this sentiment. ALL info should go this path. Let's sum it up as: Oh, YOU don't care? Well, WE do.

Re:This is the way all info should go

[PhilHibbs]

Oh, I see, you've written so many books there's no possible way you can remember them all to fill out a web form for each one.

So far, Google is the only company doing this. But what if another company starts doing this in China, another one in Russia, another one in South America, another one in South Africa, one in Israel, etc., how many web forms in how many languages are you prepared to fill in for each of your books? You go on from saying how simple it is to then say that other companies should be able to get into the same game, but you don't seem to have thought it through.

Bad Summary

[secretcurse]

I know, I know, everyone always bitches about a bad summary, but this one's really bad. The linked article doesn't really claim that authors have a "functioning copyright system." The article argues that authors won't get a good deal if they give up their individual contract negotiation rights for a one-size-fits-all Google deal. Anyone who thinks (here in America anyway) we have a "functioning system of copyright" hasn't been paying too much attention for the last several years...

Google's monopoly

[Netssansfrontieres]

While Google is protesting Microsoft's de facto monopoly of desktop client software, it is working hard to create a de jure and de facto monopoly for itself in an important area of content. In the proposed settlement, Google is the ONLY legal site for ALL [in copyright but out of print] printed content.

How is this a good thing?

Apologies for the cowardly anonymity, not my normal style, but there's plenty to worry about here.

Re:Think of the poor publishers!

[Chaos Incarnate]

If Google is just providing the text, that's one thing. But if they're providing an exact page image, than they should be paying the publisher for their graphic design and page layout work.

What is being imposed?

[Bob9113]

That's the date by which every author and publisher in America is supposed to decide whether to "opt in," "opt out," or simply "ignore" a vast compulsory licensing scheme for the benefit of Google. Most, about 88%, are expected to "ignore." That's because they know their online display rights have value, and the last thing they want is to be herded like sheep into a giant contract commitment.

OK, so it's an option - a new market that the author can choose to participate in, as he or she wishes?

For private gain, the Google parties now seek to destroy the health in the system that individual bargaining preserves.

"Seek to destroy"? It's an option - a new market option.

Disputes will be fixed in arbitration with no access to federal courts which have often shown mercy to authors. Arbitrators will be "you sign it you eat it" line-parsing bureaucrats.

This differs from a contract with binding-arbitration between an author and a traditional publisher how?

If she's arguing that authors should choose to ignore, that seems reasonable. But that last bit sounds like she is claiming there is evil in allowing Google to offer the new business model. Is she an author? Maybe she is a PR person for a traditional publisher? Do I just not get it, and there actually is some new impediment inflicted upon the author here? Or is this article fishy?

Re:Hummm.

[Comboman]

It's "opt-out" meaning that unless you are careful, Google will start selling your books whether you want them to or not.

The problem with an opt-in system is that with the current near-perpetual copyright terms, there are lots of books that are still under copyright but long out-of-print (or worse, out-of-print and publisher out-of-business) with no way to contact the author (if they are still alive) or even determine who the current copyright holder is.

Scathing Rebuttal to the NYT article

[cjewel]

Literary Agent Janet Reid has a rather scathing rebuttal to Chu's article which Reid (who has actually read the settlement, something Chu did not do) feels is spectacularly uninformed and incorrect. I tend to agree with Reid. (FYI, I am an author whose in copyright books were scanned by Google. I am a member of the class.)

Re:Hummm.

[mrchaotica]

No, that's exactly why opt-in is good -- if the copyright holder can't be bothered to identify himself, why should he still retain the privilege of controlling the book?

Of course, opt-out with short copyright terms would be better...