Slashdot Mirror
Google's Plan For Out-of-Print Books Is Challenged
Death Metal writes to tell us that a growing tide of complaints are being piled at Google's feet in response to a far-reaching settlement that some feel will grant the giant too much power over the "orphan books" they have been scanning into digital format. The settlement could give Google near-exclusivity with respect to the copyright of orphan works — books that the author and publisher have essentially abandoned. They are out of print, and while they remain under copyright, the rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. "Critics say that without the orphan books, no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create, giving the company more control than ever over the realm of digital information. And without competition, they say, Google will be able to charge universities and others high prices for access to its database. The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly.'"
Honestly, this seems like Google-bashing for its own sake. Who else is making a serious effort to get a hold of these orphan books and put them out there? Last I checked, absolutely no one.
If the choice is a monopoly over the digitized copy of these books, or letting them fade into obscurity un-digitized, do we really want to choose option B?
If these books are truly orphaned, it would be vastly preferable if Google were able to find it in themselves to donate some of their vast resources to putting the works up on Project Gutenberg.
That would go a long way towards telling the world that their intentions are honest.
I would say that a monopoly of one is better than a monopoly of zero...
The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,
Funny. It sounds like Google is going to steal the soul of these book and jail them in their databases. Hehe. There is no logic in this argument. The books are still available at the respective libraries. What is the problem in making them available at other place?
Instead of bashing someone who decides to spend the money to implement a solution, why don't you just compete with them. Scan these books yourself and offer them online.
Oh, you don't have the financial resources to pull that off and you cannot get any backers? Well, I guess you really have nothing to say then.
Nothing to see here...move along.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
What's preventing others from scanning those same books again? Yes, it's a pain in the butt, but that's exactly why Google should be allowed to ask for whatever the market is willing to bear.
The only problem I can see if various ideas for the copyright protection of databases come to pass. Then Google could indeed have a perpetual monopoly for their list of orphaned copies.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Libraries often compete with one another on collections. They strive to be the foremost collection on some topic, maybe it's 17th century farming techniques, or modern optics. They compete and they gather rich alumni at major universities to donate private works and give them money to expand their very special collections.
Now along comes Google. Scanning books and keeping copyright on works that have been long abandoned. Some Universities were happy to take Google's money to be part of the scanning project, but now some want to turn and bite that hand.
If I can find a long since out of print book that no library has, or at least that no library would dare loan me, online and in a reproducible format - explain to me how that is different from assembling a rare collection in a library? Explain how the term monopoly is used in this context, because I do not think that word means what Senor Darnton from Hahh-vahhd thinks it means.
Google is adding to the diversity of publications in the world, and giving it to mankind. What they are doing, IN ACTUALITY, is removing the monopoly that university libraries once had. So I can see why they might be upset about it.
There is a very simple and very obvious solution to all of this.
Let orphan works fall into the public domain.
Yeah, copyright run amok causes problems. We could have told you that before any of this business.
So add book publishers to the list of greedy idiots that handed a technology company a monopoly on a silver platter.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
the man is concerned about Google being the exclusive source of access to these books
There is nothing from keeping anyone from getting access to these books the same way that Google did...
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
This is not a useful tool for mankind.
a useful tool for mankind is something like... fire.
or a wheel.
This is a database of books. It is an interesting application, but it is not one that should be awarding copyright over the books in question.
it is certainly not groundbreaking.
in any case, I say that if a given book is public domain before this project, it should remain public domain after this project, or the library of Alexandria the parent envisions this project as will become the sole repository of these books, which is both unsafe and unreasonable. Just ask the previous owners of the library of Alexandria.
There are books that no one is printing anymore, we all know this, and most of us have probably wanted one at some time or another. Here is Google putting together a solution, and people are bitching? I understand the general complain of 'monopoly', but as other people have stated they aren't destroying the other books out there. If it's in a library and you don't want to pay Google, go look it up in the library.
As for the other people who are complaining, again, go start a business and start digitizing them yourself. At face value I don't see a problem with this, they have the means to fill a niche that no one else wants/can. Why aren't publishers already doing all this? I should be able to go to a publisher's website and purchase/download any book they have rights to, but they don't, so let Google step in and attempt to create a new market.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
In the UK, and a few other countries, if you have cash in a bank account and don't touch it for 15 years, the government will seize it and give it away to charity.
That's real actual CASH. Tangible (erm ... ok ... not entirely) but it's actual property. So why the hell not do that with Imaginary Property that's been 'abandoned'?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
No, the implication is that Google has an exclusive right to these books now. And they don't, depending on how you turn the phrase. In the sense that nobody else is ever allowed to get a license, no, it's not exclusive. In the sense that nobody else DOES have one, then yes, it's exclusive. There is something stopping another entity from creating their own anthology: The fact that Google has a license now, and nobody else does. ;) Google threw a lot of lawyers and money at the publishers to get this settlement package. Not everybody can do that to a team of large corporations.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Those books are not yours. That's the fundamental thing. THAT PROPERTY IS NOT YOURS. If I am Joe author of a book, and Google scans it, I have every right to demand Google yank it back out. Convenience is not an excuse to violate civil rights.
This is my sig.
You mean just scanning 7 million of them and putting them online, then getting sued, and throwing enough lawyers at all the publishers to get a settlement where you don't allow in-print works to be accessed, and in exchange they grant you a license for all out-of-print works? That "same way that Google did"?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
What a load of FUD!
- Google isn't charging for access.
- Universities do charge for access (or membership).
- Why wouldn't libraries find their own copies of orphaned books and include them in their catalog?
What is really in danger here is the university library business model: charge a premium for things that should be open to the public.
Far too many establishments seek to control access to information / and thus knowledge. I for one hope Google scans as many books/papers as possible. At least we'd be able to find them.
They should not be given any rights at all. They can enforce their control over the contents via licensing.
If I go and digitize and publish one of these orphan works myself, Google should not be able to stop me. And I don't believe they'd try. Only the legal copyright holder (or assigned designee) could try to sue me for copyright infringement.
If I try to republish orphan works that Google has digitized, that I acquired from Google -- then fine, I would be profiting from Google's work and they should have recourse against me. But, that recourse should not be enforcement of copyright, it should be violation of contract (which I would have agreed to prior to downloading the work).
The only reason to assign some form of copyright to Google for these works is so that Google could use the legal copyright enforcement structure (and associated laws) to enforce their claim. I don't think that claim is valid, they have legal recourse according to contract law, and since they are not the owners of the copyright, they should be able to make no claims nuder copyright law. Ever (foir these orphaned works).
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create"
Um, why not? If something is *out* of copyright entirely (not merely out of print, but actually in the public domain because the copyright term has expired) what exactly is stopping competitors from copying the same book and putting it on the web? I've seen plenty of examples of 19th-century books done that way -- people interested in those works sitting down with a scanner and laboriously scanning each page, then putting them on the web. Google a monopoly? Hardly, when every shmoe with a copy of the book and a scanner can duplicate it.
Oh, and university libraries are the *last* people that should be complaining about this, given that they're the ones with huge collections and they COULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING decades ago, and still could now, if they wanted to serve their customers better. Years ago they should have gotten off their lazy posteriors and scanned *everything* in their library that is out of copyright. EVERYTHING. It means they could put the books in long-term storage (save money on shelf space), preserve the books better (no broken brittle paper or book bindings from further handling), and deliver copies of these old and rare works via interlibrary loan at far less expense and time (and wear-and-tear) than running them through a photocopier over and over again. At the very least they should be doing this only once, and then saving the copy digitally. It's freaking obvious.
Now they want to complain because google is doing their job for them? Sure, there's an important legal difference between "orphan works" and "copyright expired", but, really, why couldn't libraries have pushed for more flexibility with "orphan works" a long time ago? Some kind of broad, general license could have been negotiated. And why haven't they generally made all expired works available electronically, and let google walk into the market unchallenged?
There's hardly grounds for complaining about something they should have been doing a long time ago.
The actual complaint as someone further up posted seems to be that Google will have the copyright on the digitized version. If they have copyright on it, you cannot make a new digitized version without at least facing legal confrontation with Google (whether or not you win, it will still be expensive). If these works were worth the legal expense of confronting Google, they would still be in print.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's funny how Slashdotters completely forget what "anti-competitive behavior" means when the perpetrator is not spelled M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
No, now that Google has put the brunt of their weight and money on the issue, I would dare to say the next person who comes along will simply need to pay for the scanning service and access to the library.
In other words, Google isn't locking anyone out of anything. The only barrier to entry will be the standard "I need money to make money" barrier that has nothing to do with Google.
Current IP laws do not aim for the benefit of the public or fairness or logic. They only aim for the benefit of corporations by enabling them to extort money from the public, i.e. from humanity.
The initial intention of the law, to benefit inventors, artists, scientists etc. who actually put time and money into the creation of their work has been blown out of proportion, aiming to turn IP into something similar to real estate.
Anyone can have an idea, it doesn't take that much time to do research or write a song. Implying that the products of these efforts should be property forever* is ridiculous.
*I consider 100+ years to be "forever" given that it's longer than the average lifespan.
5, 10, 15 year terms encourage artists, inventors, scientists enough.
The public is what makes a work more valuable by giving its collective attention to it. The current copyright law terms and conditions are overreaching and rob the public.
"Now millions of orphan books may get a new legal guardian"
.. But what does raise an eyebrow is the source of New York Law's funding on this matter: Microsoft. The chief investigator of the New York Law School project is James Grimmelmann. In an earlier career phase, associate law professor Grimmelmann worked as a programmer for Microsoft'
Where in the text of the settlement is ownership transferred exclusively to Google?
"Critics say that without the orphan books, no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create, giving the company more control than ever over the realm of digital information"
Where in this settlement does it forbid anyone else creating an online archive of orphan works, Project Gutenberg for instance. Would one source of this spontaneous concern be out of Redmond?
'at least one party nudging its way into the settlement is an Internet-issues oriented group from New York Law School
davecb5620@gmail.com
If this doesn't cause all large publishers to steal the idea and add digitized, "out of print books" to a section of thier websites, then they deserve what they get. Publishers were just handed a fantastic business plan to expand thier companies. I'll bet that they don't do anything but hire lawyers.
On the Media, a weekly NPR show, had an interview with Robert Darnton last week.
Some people are clearly worried that Google is getting so big. I doubt we'll see too many companies even attempt to do the massive book scan that Google is. If/when Google tries to abuse its digital monopoly power over these books, antitrust regulators will almost certainly step in and force Google to license the data to competitors. Worrying about their potential monopoly power is hardly good reason to try to stop them at this point; some access through Google is certainly better than none.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Yes, thanks to Google, we will have a single online database with "orphaned" books. As opposed to a non-existent online database of said books. Granted, I would rather have a non-profit government entity to maintain this library, but since librarians are not doing a diddly squat to make it happen, I will gladly accept Google's work.
Saying that Google will have a "monopoly" is dubious, imho. As far as I understand, Google will not own copyright on any of these works, but merely will have a court decision allowing it to display them. How the hell is that bad? Up until now, no one could put these things online. Google effectively breached the wall of copyright, with a clear benefit for the public. It is not even a lesser evil we have to settle for, it is a clear win for everyone...
...Except for publishers, of course, who are afraid of competition from perfectly good books that are free to access. Oh heavenly muses, how will they ever sell new books if anyone can access old books with comparable content? Does it mean they will have to top them? To seek out and publish writings that are superior to the stuff that is 50 years old? Oh boy, what a gloomy future it must be for them, nothing but hard work ahead. Good bye, millions of dollars for sitting on your ass in a hot tub and frying your brain at coke parties.
So they have the power to grant Google access to orphan books whos publishers and authors haven't explicitly authorized it?
How does that work? 'we can grant google this power even though we don't have it, but we can't grant it to anyone else because we don't have it!'
That argument doesn't appear to make a whole lot of sense to me.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The first guy to do something always has a monopoly on it, until someone else steps in to do so.
So basically the bitch is, according to slashdot mentality, that since Google is doing it first, they are evil. Forget the fact that no one else is bothering. Forget the fact that it really ISN'T exclusive to Google. Forget the fact that no one is willing to make the investment to do so.
Of course if all goes well and Google goes forward and people use it, we'll see many clones. And the clones will have the distinct advantage that Google already paid for the lawyers and retarded legal battles in an attempt to solve the problem.
But we don't think about that here, on slashdot everything should be free for the taking, regardless of the fact that someone put a rather large amount of effort into it.
Really, slashdot is full of a bunch of freeloaders who use 'freedom' as nothing more than a battle cry for 'Give us everything for Free because we're entitled to it even though we've done nothing to contribute!'
Put the entire population of slashdot on an island where they have to work for themselves and come back in a week. You'll find 20 people alive hiding from the stench of the other million or so dead bodies of people too lazy to find some food or water for themselves. There were entitled to that water you know, because everything should be free.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Actually the initial intention of the law (at least how I read it in the Constitution) is to benefit the public by encouraging artists to create.
The benefit to artists was almost a side-effect, or more a way to get more works into the public domain.
If you think about it--in offering copyright, I am giving up something (the ability to reproduce a work I've seen). What am I giving this up in exchange for?
There is no innate rule that someone who creates something has any right to exclude others from it. This is a gift we give them as a thank you for creating something that will someday belong to us all.
Sometimes I think we should just revoke the right altogether for a few years. Disney's manipulation of the laws for profit has been horrific, they have stolen from all of us more than any copyright infringer. By now, we should own Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh and hundreds of other characters.
Every time they are almost out from under copyright, Disney goes back to congress and manipulates the law in order to steal them from us for a few more years.
This is more horrific and evil thievery (at least in volume) than every bit-torrent ever downloaded.
Google will, at best, have a "sweat of brow" right to the exact images they scanned. They do not get a magical "any digital reproduction of this work" right.
Nothing blocks you from scanning it yourself or possibly even typing it in by hand, other than your ability to access the original work. If it happens that there is only one known physical copy and Google bought it, or has an exclusive license with the owner, then you might have a problem. But no worse than before.
I'm for it, as I've had requests for interlibrary loans that took months because the book spent more time on the road, bouncing from library to library, than it did in use. Similarly, I've wasted days because I had to schedule vault time to get access to books too worn to lend(but I couldn't take pictures, even without a flash).
Neither, as it turns out. I was merely indicating that the post I was responding to, which cited the passage of text from the article that I reproduced in my post, appeared to completely miss the point of the cited passage.
If you read my post, you'll find the following:
Which, in simple English that you'll hopefully be better able to understand, means "the stuff you quoted from the librarian man has nothing to do with what your rant is about. You may be correct, but you aren't responding to what the man actually said." I didn't endorse either side, as evidenced by the statement towards the end:
And now, to examine something you said:
I'm not pissed at anything; I personally love the convenience of having books available through Google, and I'd pay to use them online if I had to. But your rant has nothing to do with what I said, at all. I was merely pointing out that the person I was responding to was off on a rant, supposedly in relation to a bit of quoted text, that had nothing to do with the quoted text. What the quoted librarian said was meant as a serious argument about the possible consequences of this project, and that argument deserves to be taken seriously, even if you disagree. Taking an argument seriously is not the same as endorsing it; taking an argument seriously is a crucial part of rational discussion.
Now, to circle back:
Which category do you fall into? Honestly, I'd assume neither - I think you're just an average Slashdot boor that likes to engage in namecalling and galloping off on rants about your hobby-horse topics, however little bearing they have on the matter at hand, and however little justification there might be in doing so. But I'm willing to consider another viewpoint, if you're interested in presenting it.