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.

Comments

Censorship

[Gat0r30y]

Is inappropriate. Don't be evil Google.

Re:Censorship

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Exactly. NOTHING is inappropriate!

Google needs to stop censoring books and youtube.

They dont sensor their image search results... YET. I know they have their moderate filter on by default and perhaps that is how they should approach books and youtube videos as well but at the end of the day, citizens of the United States and the world should not be censored by Google. It should be left up to the user.

so called "offensive" material is 1 click away from EVERYTHING. As it should be.

Re:Censorship

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

Ok... if you want to use the google definition of censorship then maybe the GP was incorrect. What he meant was inappropriate or unacceptable censorship is when it is coming from the government.

Google is a private company. When people start pissing and moaning about how "MY FREEDOMS ARE BEING TRAMPLED, OOOOH NOOOOOOOES!!!" because a private company is doing something they don't like it is the height of hypocrisy. Google has the right to censor whatever they damn well please. You and the OP should be fighting FOR Google's right to host whatever they choose.

Re:Censorship

[guyminuslife]

It may not be the case in this particular instance, but if censorship by the government and censorship by private corporations amounts to essentially the same thing---for instance, if American ISPs got together to initiate their own Project Golden Shield---what's the difference? Who cares who they're working for?

Out of curiousity ...

[dkleinsc]

was Farenheit 451 on the list of "inappropriate" books?

You agree unless you take action?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

If These People Had Been Around Back in the Day

[Greyfox]

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.

Re:If These People Had Been Around Back in the Day

[Anonymous Coward]

No point in singeling out the Taliban. Almost all religions and almost all governments have done this at least once in their history.

Who determines what is inappropriate?

[wfstanle]

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.

Re:Who determines what is inappropriate?

[vlm]

They are not a publically funded library.

Thats right, they are a judicially granted legal monopoly where no one else is allowed to compete. Since the judge is preventing a free market from developing, they must be regulated for the public good, but they are unregulated. Hence the turmoil around this issue.

Author! Author!

[Quiet_Desperation]

A group of authors, including Philip K. Dick's estate

Huh. Which books did Philip K. Dick's estate write?

Um, authors?

[8tim8]

>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...

Put another way...

[Pirate_Pettit]

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.

This is why class-action is stupid

[Fortunato_NC]

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?

Re:This is why class-action is stupid

[swillden]

And if it isn't, why can a bunch of lawyers step in for 7 million people and accept a crappy deal?

It isn't a crappy deal. Not really. Oh, the cash is pitiful, but the terms are good for authors and readers both. Publishers are going to lose out, eventually, but that makes sense because they're becoming unnecessary.

The biggest change this settlement creates is for authors whose works are currently out of print. These are people who currently aren't making anything for their books. Not only do they get a little in the settlement, they also get a new opportunity for their work to be read, and even sold.

I expect even authors who are in print to benefit, though, for the same reasons that Baen's Free Library has proven to be such a windfall for both Baen and the authors who volunteered their works for the library. The very biggest obstacle any author has to overcome isn't a way to make sure they get royalty checks, it's obscurity. Once a significant number of people know and enjoy an author's work, making a living from writing is easy.

The settlement will increase access, but will do it in a format that's inconvenient and unpleasant for reading, and in a way that's just a few clicks and a few dollars away from an actual printed copy -- and a subsequent royalty check delivered to the author.

Time will tell, but my prediction is that most in-print authors will choose to opt *in* to full access through Google Reader, and their bank accounts will be glad they did.

Meanwhile, the REAL purpose of copyright is fantastically well-served by this agreement. Note that the purpose of copyright has nothing to do with compensating authors, the real purpose is to encourage broad publication, and to maximize the access of the public to new works and new ideas. To do that, we need to provide just enough incentive to get writers to write, and an easy and efficient publication mechanism. This settlement preserves the opportunity for authors to make money (motivating them to write more) while making their works much easier to find and obtain.

Re:Google is a business, not the end-all

[roguetrick]

Due to this court decision, they are a monopoly in this particular case. That would be the problem.

Peter Rabbit

[Tired and Emotional]

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!