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.

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).

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?