Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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!
like phosphorescent desert buttons singing one familiar song
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.
http://xkcd.com/548/
Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.
"the settlement will ruin a functioning copyright system"
I suppose he's implying the current copyright system will be unaffected, right?
Right?
Ok, I think the guy from WSJ has some kind of a point, but...
We already have a good system. It's called the system of private property and free contract, designed for dispersed, autonomous individuals -- not command-and-control centers.
I don't know the situation in the US, but in Brazil we have 2 or 3 publishers that hold 95% of the market. That doesn't seem to me much different from 'comand and control centers'.
Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.
>Should publishers get a cut of the money, at least as long as their book is being scanned?
Definitely. Especially if the book has been out of print for decades and the publisher has no plans, and no interest, in every publishing fresh copies. We need to keep the revenue going to the people it's always gone to!
Generally speaking, I very much prefer paper books too... and can't see ever switching over to a Kindle or any other sort of e-reader.
However, the one advantage that e-books have over the real thing is that I can't throw my feet up on my cubicle desk and read a paper book... but I CAN spend all day reading a PDF (and/or Slashdot), and it looks like I'm working.
Since I spend a quarter-to-a-third of my life sitting at the office, working jobs that involve 10% programming work and 90% being held up by inefficient management, time-fillers are an important part of my life. In a perfect world, I could just waste time openly and perhaps encourage management to get its organization together so I'd be less bored. In the real world though that would just get me outsourced, so I need to give the impression that I'm "heads down" and slaving away for my brilliant manager. E-books help.
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.
Loading...
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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).
"Good news, everyone!"
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.
The aging baby boomers now flacking the settlement don't seem to understand that PDF scanning (how Google and everyone else digitizes books) isn't rocket science; it's cheap and easy. Books will be digitized without Google.
Actually, from what I've read, scanning books on any large scale is not cheap or easy. It's a fairly expensive undertaking, involving more specialized equipment than your desktop flatbed scanner, and involves moving lots of books around, in and out of large libraries. It's not an undertaking for the faint of heart. Microsoft tried, and decided to quit. Furthermore, the value of having a single large repository is greater than a bunch of fractured repositories that probably won't have a good way of connecting with one another.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz