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

You Would Think...

[mlingojones]

...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.

Re:You Would Think...

[Shadow Wrought]

suppose we'll have to wait and see what gets flagged as "inappropriate."

Two words: Ann Coulter.

Re:You Would Think...

[maxume]

She will be remembered as one of the great humorists of our time.

mental fllexibility

[beanyk]

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.

I'd have thought that anyone related to Philip K. Dick would be able to wrap their mind around -anything-.

Out of curiousity ...

[dkleinsc]

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

Re:Burn 'em!

[rlp]

Question: how do you burn a digital book?

Depends on whether you are making a CD or DVD ...

What kind of books are inappropriate?

[JTsyo]

How to Prepare Children for Witches
Designing a Meth Lab
The Demise of America under Corporations

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.

How can a third pary lawsuit change my rights?

[N7DR]

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.

Re:How can a third pary lawsuit change my rights?

[Chyeld]

How Class Action Lawsuits Work

Specificly:

The court directs that notice be given to all parties having a similar claim for the duration of a particular time period. They are to be notified (generally by the defendents' attorneys) so that they may be informed and have input into the case. This is where all parties, including the person or persons who bring the claim, are treated equally. This means that all class members are supposed to have equal input, rights to any monies, remedies ordered by the court, and so forth.

There are often several notices mailed to class members over the course of the case. The first notice is to accomplish the above - plus the added purpose of giving a person the option to "opt-out" (not be a party in the case) and not be represented by the party who established this case and is issuing the notice.

If a party "opts out," they have no further standing in the case. They can forget the matter or bring an action on their own behalf.
Neither option gives them right to any damages won in the original case.

If a party does NOT "opt-out," they are generally deemed to be a party to the case, are bound by the settlement, and prohibited in taking any further action on the matter.

If you don't get notice and have no idea of what is going on ... too bad! The court normally is required to direct that the "best notice practical under the circumstances " be given (normally mail, sometimes publication). Again, if you don't receive or find the notice and the "opt-out" date passes ... again, too bad!

At this point, you're "in" and bound by the courts decision. The case proceeds, sometimes for years. If you never received notice, you'll more than likely never know about any monies or other remedies to which you may be entitled.

Author! Author!

[Quiet_Desperation]

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

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

Re:Burn 'em!

[Drakkenmensch]

You create multiple amazon accounts and register several "complaints" from "offended users", and magically the book will vanish from the site as if it had never existed. All the extremism of traditional book burnings without the inconvenience of gasoline fumes!

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...

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.

Welcome to Class Action Lawsuits.

[pavon]

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.

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.

Re:Burn 'em!

[bcrowell]

You create multiple amazon accounts and register several "complaints" from "offended users", and magically the book will vanish from the site as if it had never existed.

I'm not sure it's actually that easy to create sockpuppet accounts on amazon. I know for sure that they will not allow you to post a review until you make at least one purchase, which means you've not only had to spend some money, but presumably also had to supply them with a credit card that correlated with your real-world identity. Also, IIRC amazon backed off on the censorship thing, claiming it was all a mistake.

Re:Censorship

[CastrTroy]

It's not censorship unless it's banned by the government. That's like saying your local grocery store is censoring because they choose not to carry porn, or that best buy is censoring because they don't stock certain movies. As a corporation they have the right to host whatever content they feel like. And reject whichever content they don't want.

Re:Censorship

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It's not censorship unless it's banned by the government.

Wrong.

Any suppression of publication is censorship. (Your examples of stores choosing what to carry is a red herring; they're distributors, not publishers.) And in fact it happens all the time, and we accept it as a fact of life. The question is, when should censorship be disallowed? In the US we've taken the line that censorship by the government is generally wrong and that corporate censorship is generally okay. But as corporations get more powerful -- as their effect on the lives of the average citizen becomes less and less distinguishable from the effect of government -- we may have to revise that view.