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.
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.
She will be remembered as one of the great humorists of our time.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Find free books.