Slashdot Mirror
Google To Remove "Inappropriate" Books From Digital Library
Miracle Jones writes "In an interview with Professor (and former Microsoft employee) James Grimmelmann at the New York Law School, who is both setting up an online clearinghouse to discuss the Google book settlement and drafting an amicus brief to inform the court about the antitrust factors surrounding "orphan books," he revealed that Google will be able to moderate the content of its book scans in the same way that they moderate their YouTube videos, leaving out works that Google deems "inappropriate" from the 7 million library books it has scanned. The Fiction Circus has called for a two-year long rights auction that will ensure that these "inappropriate" titles do not get left behind in the digital era, and that other people who are willing to host and display these books will be able to do so. There is only one week left for authors and publishers to "opt out" of the settlement class and retain their rights or raise objections, and Brewster Kahle's Internet Archive has been stopped from jumping on board Google's settlement as a party defendant and receiving the same legal protections that Google will get. A group of authors, including Philip K. Dick's estate, has tried to delay the settlement for four more months until they get their minds around the issue." In related news, Google is seeking a 60-day extension to the period in which it's attempting to contact authors to inform them of their right to opt-out of the terms of the settlement.
...that Google might have learned something from the massive backlash against Amazon for supposedly doing something similar?
I suppose we'll have to wait and see what gets flagged as "inappropriate." Whatever the case, I'm guessing that people won't care nearly as much as t hey did with Amazon.
Question: how do you burn a digital book?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Is inappropriate. Don't be evil Google.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
Apparently it's already been squatted.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I'd have thought that anyone related to Philip K. Dick would be able to wrap their mind around -anything-.
was Farenheit 451 on the list of "inappropriate" books?
I am officially gone from
Given that much of this stuff will be older, and given the general relaxation of a number of social mores over time, I'd be interested to know what "inappropriate" will mean.
All but the freakiest historical porn is more or less newstand ready(though, as in pre-code Hollywood, the past is not always so prudish as supposed). On the other hand, the sort of stuff that qualified as a refined academic treatise upon the qualities and character of the negroid races would probably raise eyebrows anywhere outside of a Klan meeting these days.
How to Prepare Children for Witches
Designing a Meth Lab
The Demise of America under Corporations
What I don't understand, as an author who holds copyright in at least one book that is out of print, is: how can a lawsuit to which I am not a party give *my* rights under copyright law to someone else?
That seems to be fundamentally wrong.
Tangentially, I find it somewhere between interesting and amusing (or perhaps scary) that Google appears to have made no attempt to contact me, despite the fact that I'm hardly the most difficult person to find.
Even more tangentially, there doesn't seem to be any place to go to see if google has actually digitized a book in which I have rights. Someone please correct me if there's a way to do that. (But in any case, why should I be the one who has to go and see if they've infringed rights? They are the ones who are supposed to seek permission from me.)
Frankly, this whole "settlement" seems utterly unconscionable.
I think it is interesting that they have the audacity to assume consent unless someone explicitly tells them no. It seems to me that this is just plain wrong and should be illegal. What a screwed up world we have created...
They'd have chipped the wang off the Statue of David. Let's see, who else do I know that had a policy of making "Inappropriate" works of art disappear? Oh yes... The Taliban.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If no one can find porn on Google Books, they're driving away 90% of their potential customers.
So Google wishes to censor books that are deemed to be "inappropriate"? This begs the question... Who gets to determine what is inappropriate? There are many definitions in the world about what is inappropriate and Google is an international company. Who do we ask to sit on the board? I'm sure that anyone who is picked will be objectionable to someone.
A group of authors, including Philip K. Dick's estate
Huh. Which books did Philip K. Dick's estate write?
>A group of authors, including Philip K. Dick's estate...
In that single collection of words is everything that's wrong with our copyright system...
Waving the censorship flag is a bit overzealous. IMO google is choosing carefully which books to include in its project. They're neither a library, nor a government - why should they archive every book under the sun? Did any of us expect to be able to find and search every book ever published? It's more a question of merit. Why waste the space on children's origami books, or every edition of "Upgrading and Repairing PCs". However, I would still like to see that list. It would shed some light on the opinions and thought processes of those in charge at google.
It seams to be more about image than censorship, they are allowing other (which is retarded as others should be allowed anyway) to host book they don't want their name associated with. Refusing to stock hardcore porn in a library (preserving the image of the library) is very different from banning hardcore porn anywhere (censorship).
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
All I really want to know is what Harlan Ellison thinks.
He's a beacon of light in our troubled forest of copyright.
Google isn't contacting you because you're too small fry.
Anyway, what I don't get is what this summary means. Is it talking about "censorship", about porn, or about digital rights management/copyright issues. The summary seems to vacillate between either of those interpretations, and most people here immediately seem to assume "censorship", but I don't really see how they can conclude that with any degree of certainty.
Reading the article (which is pretty badly written) it seems to be about "porn" mostly, but they fail to explain why we are supposed to care, or why the fact that google has a non-exclusive deal with the AG makes the current situation worse. Apparently they're blaming Google for not having competitors, which seems pretty stupid.
Right now those orphaned (and other) books aren't accessible, nor in the PD, and this won't change if Google partially publishes and partially censors them (as they still won't be PD), but apparently if google censors them there will be no other way for us whatever to access those books, which seems something of a stretch. (but hey, sensationalist journalism is great. It's almost as though they've confused GOOG for MSFT, the twits.)
Secondly, the auction house idea seems even more legally untenable than this deal with the AG is.
Lastly, what is the relevance of P.K. Dick's estate to the discussion, other than as a name?
So Google commits the most blatant act of copyright infringement in the history of mankind - basically stealing 7 million books and posting them on the Internet (with "limitations", which will be quickly circumvented with some clever Google "mash-up"). Someone steps forward, claims to represent the entire class of authors who has been wronged, accepts a pitiful "settlement" (well, it's pitiful if you are one of 7 million authors who are going to be paid $60 for your hard work, the $30 million cut for the lawyers is pretty impressive), and now the authors have two choices:
1. Accept a really crappy deal.
2. Sue one of the largests corporations on Earth, which can point to the 6.99 million plus other authors who took (or at least, didn't opt out of) the lousy deal and say, "This is what everyone else thought these rights were worth."
Meanwhile, a 12-year old downloads a crappy pop song onto her grandparent's blueberry iMac, and the RIAA gets to extort thousands of dollars out of dear old Grandma.
Why is "Hit Me Baby One More Time" worth so much more than something like "Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage"? And if it isn't, why can a bunch of lawyers step in for 7 million people and accept a crappy deal?
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
When a class action lawsuit is approved to go forward, then anyone and everyone defined in that class is bound by the terms of the eventual settlement unless they specifically opt-out in writing. The lawyers bringing the class action suit are supposed to contact the members of the class, but when the class is so large, this often only happens by means of a few postings in trade literature, or some commercials run on TV or the like.
A similar thing happened to my parents. They (foolishly) bought a car on a lease-to-own program, where a certain amount of what you pay in the lease is supposed to apply to the eventual purchase price. Well, in addition to being a bad deal to begin with, the dealership did even not live up to these terms and also played games like applying additional payments toward future interest incurred instead of the principle. They broke their contract and the law in several instances cheating my parents (and all their other customers) out of thousands of dollars each.
Anyway some lawyer decided to bring a class action lawsuit against them for this, and eventually "won". The result - the lawyer got a ton of money, each of the screwed customers got like $50 and the dealership got off for a fraction of what they had cheated their customers out of. The laywer claimed he mailed letters to all the customers affected by this notifying them of the class action (my parents were specifically listed as such a customer as found in discovery), but they don't ever remember getting such a thing. The first they heard about it was when they tried to bring legal action against the dealership and were told they couldn't because they had been part of a class settlement, but they could contact the lawyer and request their share of that settlement if they wished.
Class action lawsuits may have been created with good intention, but the actual outcome is enrich scummy lawyers and to indemnify corporations against lawsuits for cheap.
Not hosting those books is not "Censorship", it's simply not hosting books they deem inappropriate (which is their right to do). If you have a website or a business with a website, then you have the right to NOT link to sites or articles which you completely disagree with or find inappropriate. If Google went around banning those books from every library, bookstore, and online bookstore -- then it would be censorship. They're not a government institution, and they're not a monopoly. Let them do whatever the hell they want.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
A group of authors, including Philip K. Dick's estate
Philip K. Dick's estate is an author?
This is a big part of what's wrong with copyright.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Google has been build upon free software, now they are just a big abusive monopoly.
Linus should put the Linux kernel under the GPL v3 Affero license. End of Google abuse.
What's in a sig?
Once again...the hordes come out and cry censorship...
Book is out of print...
Google doesn't post book online...
Censorship at Google!
Are you f'ing serious? So...people should demand that Google digitizes every book ever so that they aren't censoring? Ahh yes...let us all get the pitchforks and torches and force Google to do what we want...after all...that kind of totalitarian control is WAY better than censorship right guys?
Seriously...can someone please explain to me how not digitizing a book that is already out of print even begins to qualify as censorship?
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
How about Michael de Mare's Confessions of a Recovering Preppie? It was given a 0/10 on a Slashdot book review.
The only thing worse then burning books is not reading them.
The private sector does everything better, including censorship!
I don't think this is a great situation, but it's probably the least bad situation we could end up with.
It's our own fault (collectively anyway) since we let copyright maximalists set the agenda. The issue became what should the owners get from this deal, rather than what society's claim on orphaned works ought to be. Ideally we would have had a law written that allowed some sort of scheme to deal with orphaned works, but instead we end up with a situation that benefits the means to set up the legal charade that's allowed this deal to happen.
It'll be interesting to see what ends up happening in the future. It seems possible that legislation could be created to at least break Google's exclusivity if not take it away entirely.
At least we'll now have access to these works, without Google, they'd likely stay in legal limbo indefinitely.
I dunno, but they managed. http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/12/01/2008-12-01_the_complex_author_john_duignan_cites_to.html [nydailynews.com]
Stop spewing the same old tripe about them being a corporation. It doesn't excuse anything. What they are doing stinks.
... has had to be inappropriate in some fashion. Can it really be called art if it doesn't challenge our sensibilities?
What's this about a rights auction? Another attempt to lock expired copyrights back up?
There was a time was everyone understood that the word "inappropriate" is supposed to be followed by "for", as in "inappropriate for children" or "inappropriate for the occasion". But now it seems to just mean "bad". Screw that.
This headline, and the third-party posting on which the item is based, are both false. Don't take my word for it. The Settlement Agreement is a public document, available at a variety of sites including the Authors Guild's (http://www.authorsguild.org). The section defining Google's right to exclude a book for any reason -- and what obligations they encur if they ever do that -- is on pages 36 and 37. It's worth reading.
I certainly hope they deem half naked (or worse!) anthropomorphic rabbits as inappropriate. Especially as this stuff tends to end up in the hands of children!
Squirrel!
Publishers' Weekly is reporting that a request for a four-month extension by a group of authors has been approved.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6654845.html
It seems like this simply degrades the service. People who are looking for some specific information or intentionally seeking alternative sources will usually find what they are looking for regardless. Censorship often just makes information less accessible, in a desperate attempt to prevent people from exercising their own faculty of judgment, or assumes the (democratic) majority are not psychologically or emotionally fit to form rational opinions on their own. That consensus requires regulation. And they might be right, but next time Google does a moral handstand and pulls some ridiculously tacky stunt, I.e. carpet bombing impoverished nations with multi-colored crank-up wireless devices (from the Google corporate jet), etc. Don't assume they have any real faith in humanity, it's all a big f_cking game. Google is not a "good" company, although I don't think "evil" is appropriate either.
They should just set up a mod system to effectively censor unpopular ideas, like they do here at /.
Google has a lot to learn.
Lets be clear here: Google "will be able to moderate the content of its book scans". There is not yet any indication that Google *will* do anything bad or evil with its moderation powers. And you'd have to be mad to think that any non-Government entity could go live with a service that didn't allow them some editorial control.
Lets say you have these rights and publishing everything you can get your hands on- and you don't reserve any editorial rights. Eventually you publish the back editions of playboy- bam! your site load goes up ten fold and your servers start folding at the knees. What do you do? Well, you can't take them down! Isn't that censorship? Or if the US government comes to you and tells you to take something down? Or you publish "The Old Mans Guide to Pedophilia- Now With Street Addresses"- can't take that down! Or the "Bumper List of Presidents of the World and Movie Stars Phone Number". Or "Tax Statements of the U.S.A. 2008". In some kind of ideal world it may be that all these things should remain uncensored but that isn't the current world.
In the real world you have to have control of the service you are running for all sorts of horrible technical and political reasons. You would have to be hopelessly naive to believe otherwise.
By all means complain after it turns out that Google is being evil. Complain about the basic idea (scanning in copyright but out of print books). But complaining about "censorship" without any evidence of poor editorial behaviour? For fucks sake.
"Google may, at its discretion, exclude particular Books from one or more Display Uses for ... non-editorial reasons."
"Google agrees to notify the Registry of any such exclusion of a Book for editorial reasons ..."
How about the books they exclude for "non editorial reasons"? Do they have to notify anybody about that? I think they need to create a publicly available list of any books to which they have aquired the exclusive rights and have chosen to make unavailable.
Since Google has a degree of market power here, that freedom-to-go-somewhere-else is there, but somewhat limited.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.