Google Offers Scanned Books To Rival Stores

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Offers Scanned Books To Rival Stores

Posted by Soulskill on Thursday September 10, 2009 @08:59AM from the take-two-they're-small dept.

eldavojohn writes "Yesterday we covered Microsoft's jabs at the Google book deal, but today Reuters is reporting that the scanned books will be available to Google's rivals. Google said in a surprising statement, 'Google will host the digital (out-of-print) books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any Internet-connected device they choose.' They made this statement today at the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee that had been called to discuss criticism of a 2008 settlement between the Authors Guild and Google. Well, I would bet this has caught more than a few people by surprise. The Authors Guild offers a history and the fine print of the agreement."

118 of 150 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Microsoft's reply by Yvan256 · 2009-09-10 09:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Google: Google will host the digital (out-of-print) books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any Internet-connected device they choose.
Microsoft: Well, the Jerk Store called, and they're running out of you.
(yes, that stupid joke works with almost any topic)
1. Re:Microsoft's reply by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 09:13 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Microsoft: Yeah? Well, I had sex with your wife!
  You leave Mozilla out of this!
2. Re:Microsoft's reply by Quothz · 2009-09-10 09:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Google: Google will host the digital (out-of-print) books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any Internet-connected device they choose.
  Oh, joy. So what they're saying is that they retain their questionably-obtained monopoly over publishing these titles, but instead of paying them for a copy of the book, I can instead choose to pay both them and a retailer surcharge for a DRM-protected copy of the book? Exciting!
  It's awful nice of Google to open up new channels of income for themselves. Why, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be allowed to compete directly. Anyone who does must be evil.
3. Re:Microsoft's reply by DarrenBaker · 2009-09-10 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Twix! They're all Twix!
4. Re:Microsoft's reply by commodore64_love · 2009-09-10 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Bend over.
  It's a good thing we have antitrust laws to stop this kind of thing from happening. Now if only the U.S. DOJ would enforce them.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
5. Re:Microsoft's reply by Zencyde · 2009-09-10 09:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Really? What is this bullshit? Perhaps you have a better suggestion on what we should do in order to bring these books back from the dead. Be fucking happy that Google is a pro-competitive company and stop being a damned douchebag.
  
  And before you decide to fire back, how many companies do you know of with the spare resources, manpower, or motivation to do this thing properly?
  
  --
  What day is it? Could you please tell me?
6. Re:Microsoft's reply by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-09-10 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that they just said "We are going to sell these on the internet. If you like, you can sell devices that connect to the internet." Perfectly fine; but not exactly news.
7. Re:Microsoft's reply by Quothz · 2009-09-10 10:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Really? What is this bullshit? Perhaps you have a better suggestion on what we should do in order to bring these books back from the dead. Be fucking happy that Google is a pro-competitive company and stop being a damned douchebag.
  The same suggestion as always: Lobby Congress to open rights to orphaned works to publishers, with residuals going into trust via the WGA, the US Copyright Office, or a new administrative organization. And I'd hesitate to call "allowing others to buy from us, then resell" pro-competition.
  
  And before you decide to fire back, how many companies do you know of with the spare resources, manpower, or motivation to do this thing properly?
  Lexis-Nexis comes instantly to mind. Penguin Books, Del Ray Publishing, Microsoft, Ballantine Books, the Gutenberg Project, Yahoo!, AOL, Borders Books and Music, and plenty of others could pull it off, albeit some at a smaller scale. There's probably thousands of shops that would love to publish orphaned specialty titles electronically. And I strongly suspect that, if the rights to publication were open, nonprofits by the dozens would appear instantly to publish some titles.
8. Re:Microsoft's reply by DriedClexler · 2009-09-10 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Google: What's the difference? You're their all-time best-seller.
  Microsoft: Yeah? Well, I had sex with your wife!
  Google: Did you mean: I had sex with your comatose wife ?
  
  --
  Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
9. Re:Microsoft's reply by Anachragnome · 2009-09-10 10:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  More middlemen. More slices out of a pie that has already been dished up.
  A significant portion of "businesses" today are simply middlemen doing exactly the same thing.
  Right down to the apple on my desk, a lot of someones are getting a slice of the pie. The grower, the trucker, the distributor, the vendor, the government inspector, the company that makes the pesticides and waxes that cover it, the fertilizer supplier, the taxman, the dude that made the box it was shipped in, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
  Now, I realize that some of these people are essential--that apple didn't just magically appear on my desk--but when you get down to it, just how many people need a cut of my dollar to get a fucking apple on my desk?
  When you start looking at businesses with this in mind, you begin to realize just how unnecessary a significant potion of these middlemen really are. They simply drive up costs--costs that are paid by all of us.
  I don't really think it is evil. Illogical (from a consumer's perspective), yes, but not evil.
  I also don't think that Google is being evil here. Sure, they are adding more middlemen to the equation (and yeah, I think that sucks), but more then likely, they simply realized that the arrangement converts the cost of distribution into a revenue source.
10. Re:Microsoft's reply by Dare+nMc · 2009-09-10 10:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I can instead choose to pay both them and a retailer surcharge for a DRM-protected copy of the book?
  Isn't that how most retail sales work? (they are often the same price, just the OEM takes a smaller cut for the retailers service) I can buy the same book from oreilly.com or amazon.com heck soon you will have the choice, buy a kindle DRM'd version, or a non DRM'd version from either as well. The kindle is a great example, you can buy a DRM'd book from amazon and have it loaded onto your device automatically for $9.99, or go to oreilly, buy it without DRM for less, ($7.99) then transfer it to a memory card... I would hate to buy any DRM stuff from Amazon, but to not need a PC in the loop, it may be worth it at times (if you had the device and no PC handy for example.) Same as Itunes, and other music e-tailers. Buy the CD and rip, transfer. or buy the DRM'd crap straight into the thing? both actually have a audience.
11. Re:Microsoft's reply by Runaway1956 · 2009-09-10 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  You've got a nice list of companies capable of hosting the works. In fact, I've praised the Gutenberg project for their efforts. But, apparently, none of the nominees in your list have been both capable and willing to do the job on the scale that Google is doing it.
  My one single question regarding Google's arrangement is, whether they have an "exclusive" deal, or not. Can Gutenberg still scan and distribute a public domain book that Google has scanned? If so - there is NO PROBLEM with Google's arrangement. If so, the I can see a problem.
  When I find the answer to that one question, I'll decide just how much I support Google in this little venture.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
12. Re:Microsoft's reply by Quothz · 2009-09-10 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that how most retail sales work?
  Yes, which is why I don't see why folks are hailing it as some sort of beatific concession on Google's part.
  The difference between your example and what Google's doing is simply the deal under which they gained exclusive publishing rights of orphaned works, no more or less.
13. Re:Microsoft's reply by Quothz · 2009-09-10 11:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  My one single question regarding Google's arrangement is, whether they have an "exclusive" deal, or not.
  It's exclusive in the sense that anyone wishing to publish electronically, other than Google, must have copyright contractually assigned by the copyright holder, but Google is no longer bound by copyright laws when choosing to publish books which are not currently being printed (including future books).
  The exception is that, if Google rejects a book, the Registry may assign the electronic printing rights, under the same terms, to someone else.
  There's a bit (a lot) more to it - copyright owners may, with limitations, stop Google from publishing their books, and with limitations, may set the price of the books. But it binds current and future authors and publishers to file specific forms in specific ways at specific times if they don't want Google sellin' their stuff.
14. Re:Microsoft's reply by Fizzol · 2009-09-10 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's a horrendous abuse of copyright, on par with the Sonny Bono Public Domain Theft Act.
15. Re:Microsoft's reply by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 12:05 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  How is it a Monopoly? It's not an exclusive agreement, anyone else can negotiate the same or different terms with publishers.
16. Re:Microsoft's reply by DrEldarion · 2009-09-10 12:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  [quote]My one single question regarding Google's arrangement is, whether they have an "exclusive" deal, or not. Can Gutenberg still scan and distribute a public domain book that Google has scanned? If so - there is NO PROBLEM with Google's arrangement. If so, the I can see a problem.[/quote]
  Yes. There is nothing stopping people from:
  1) Scanning public domain books and distributing them.
  2) Creating similar deals with the Authors' Guild and scanning the exact same books Google does and distributing them.
  3) Pushing for better copyright reform which would make all this moot. (which Google fully supports, according to their latest blog post)
17. Re:Microsoft's reply by quarterbuck · 2009-09-10 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Opening up the copyrights won't quite solve the problem. Someone then search for all these books and scan them and put it in a central database. This is the step that cost money.
  Without the database the local bookstore can't publish it. Gutenberg is the only guys who could possibly step in and do that step. Microsoft won't do it (obvious) and neither will the book companies (or else they already would have).
  Anyway, as long as Google does not charge for internet access, I don't really care what they do with the dead tree copies or how much they charge for it.
  
  --
  http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
18. Re:Microsoft's reply by lysergic.acid · 2009-09-10 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  By "questionably-obtained monopoly," do you mean by offering a service that no one else wants to offer? Yea, how dare they...
  I also don't know why you're mentioning DRM as the article makes no mention of any DRM technology. In fact, if any DRM were to be involved, it would be at the request of the Authors Guild and others opposing Google Book Search. I mean, is Google supposed to be bad because they're against restrictive copyright policies or because they're for restrictive copyright policies?
19. Re:Microsoft's reply by Dare+nMc · 2009-09-10 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  Seams like a fair reply to the situation. Google simply got the necessary rights to recoup their costs for scanning in works, that without the agreement would have been lost to all but a very very small handful of people. Google also cleared the way for anyone else to follow the same path. The complaints all seam to flow from 1 of 3 lines either a) These works might compete against our copyrighted works b) we hate google because they are successful c) why didn't we think of that.
  So googles response along the lines of "we'll share at a reasonable cost", is all that is necessary. Any complaints along the lines of yours "but it should be free" should be muted by a low cost for something that would never have been made available to anyone without google.
20. Re:Microsoft's reply by martin-boundary · 2009-09-10 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you have a better suggestion on what we should do in order to bring these books back from the dead.
  
  Well, the right way to do this is to change the copyright laws for everybody, but that's not going to happen in a realistic number of lifetimes.
  The problem Google has is that they *have* to settle since the lawsuit isn't going away for them, and since this is a class action it *will* affect everybody in America. But the result of settlement will always be that Google is immune against infringement claims, whereas nobody else is immune. This will give Google a natural monopoly, and we all know what that means.
  The second best realistic solution is for a nonprofit industry organization to be set up, which anybody could join. The settlement would be technically between the Author's Guild and this organization, and all the members of the organization would benefit/abide by the details of it.
  So Google itself wouldn't get the immunity from copyright infringement, (as is proposed now), but this organization would. The members would be immune from copyright lawsuits if they scan the back catalog, and the publishers would have a single organization to negotiate their fees with, etc.
  Moreover, this would preserve competition, since any member could do their own scanning. So if Google's scan is only low resolution or black and white say, another company could redo the scans in colour if they liked, or offer other technological improvements. This is better than if this company cannot do scans itself (because it might get sued) and has to buy the black and white scans from Google's digital library.
21. Re:Microsoft's reply by blind+biker · 2009-09-10 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  Monopoly? How TF is that a monopoly, when anyone, willing to invest the money and time, can do it?
  Oh, you mean, the others were too lazy and too cheap? Sucks for them, but that doesn't make Google a monopoly.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
22. Re:Microsoft's reply by houghi · 2009-09-10 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Since when was opt-out a good alternative to opt-in. And since when does the Berne convention does not apply anymore. And if the Berne convention does not apply anymore, why can I still be convicted for whatever if I copy something?
  Oh yeah, because Google is a big company and am just some poor schmuck. Companies are above the law. People are guilty.
  The do-no-evil can still be true by changing the law. Neat.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
23. Re:Microsoft's reply by commodore64_love · 2009-09-11 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  Breaking-up a monopoly is not fascism (control of the Corporate Board by government). Antitrust laws exist to restore competition so the free market can work properly, and provide consumers with multiple choices. It's about restoring power to the people.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
24. Re:Microsoft's reply by commodore64_love · 2009-09-11 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  >>>The same suggestion as always: Lobby Congress to open rights to orphaned works to publishers
  A better idea is to make these orphaned works expire and fall into public domain. This is how that Christmas movie "It's A Wonderful Life" became so popular - it had fallen into the public domain, and that allowed TV stations to air it free or run-off VHS copies for free. Copyright is not intended to be forever; it's intended to be a temporary stimulus for artists.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
25. Re:Microsoft's reply by Jafafa+Hots · 2009-09-11 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Better yet - let copyrights expire if they are not used. Trademarks do, make copyrights the same.
  You don't sell that book you own the rights to for a period of, oh... 14 years? BAM, it's now public domain.
  Copyright is granted to works to encourage them to be made available to the public domain. In return you get a limited monopoly. Don't use that monopoly for a period of time, thus making it unavailable to the public at cost? Fine, you lose your copyright.
  In the past this may have been bad because it could take years to work out a book deal, but today, with today's technology, you can put your book up on Lulu.com to have it ostensibly "available for sale" to protect your copyright until that big deal comes along.
  That way, abandoned shit, 30 year old product catalogs, service manuals, all kinds of ephemera that the copyright owner doesn't give a damn about, or possibly even KNOW they hold the copyright on, can be used.
  When a company goes under or is swallowed up and parceled out 12 times over a few decades, how can you find out who owns the copyright on that 1952 tube radio service manual? You can't, and THEY aren't making use of it...
  Should be public domain. Etc.
  
  --
  This space available.
26. Re:Microsoft's reply by fulldecent · 2009-09-11 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  At first you kind of feel that Google has pulled a reach-around on copyright law and you feel that this is unfair. Then... after a while, you realize how ridiculous copyright is and that makes you feel good again.
  I see this settlement as excellent evidence for copyright reform.
  
  --
  -- I was raised on the command line, bitch
27. Re:Microsoft's reply by zehaeva · 2009-09-11 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you that an opt-in is better than an opt-out .. however if it were opt-in then we'd be in the same position we were before google even tried, making the whole exercise moot. we'd still have millions of books that no one could publish because the authors have orphaned the works, either don't care or have dropped off the face of the planet or died and didn't leave any clear manager of their estate, if anyone even cares about their estate.
  i'm pretty sure that i saw even google say that this is pretty much a hack, the only way to get around it is to reform copyright law. push it back to a sane limited term and go back to registered works rather than automatically covering every scribble on the back of a napkin for the life of the author + 95 years and allowing 100+ years of time for a work of art(visual or otherwise) to fall into the cracks of cultural oblivion.
  its a raw deal but we have it because some aging people have a hard time dealing with the idea that maybe someday in the future some bollywood hotshot will remake their great novel into 10 things i hate about you.
  its what we got, until people realize that things like the berne convention are hurting our culture the problem will only become more serious and more out of whack.
  ~z
28. Re:Microsoft's reply by Quothz · 2009-09-11 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  The Settlement covers Books only if they were published on or before January 5, 2009. Books published after January 5, 2009 are not included in the Settlement
  Huh; my mistake. I looked through the settlement itself and that wasn't clear - it refers to the class as rights holders on or before that date, but later talks about any published work copyrighted after 1922. I took that to mean that works published in the future by class members - including a lot of publishers - would be covered in the agreement.
  Clearly, I read it wrong, although in fairness, the language of the settlement isn't clear to a layman. The FAQ represents the understanding that members of the settlement will have and is therefore how the courts would interpret a dispute.
  None of this makes me happier about the deal - it only means Google gets more limited exclusive rights than I thought, and nobody gets to electronically publish future orphaned works without breaking the law in the same way Google did. My opinion that Congress should address the issue of orphaned works as a general change to copyright law remains unchanged.
  If I could unmod my own comment, I would - it's clearly misinformative, not informative. Thanks for the correction, and ditto to the others that did so.
There goes Google... by nametaken · 2009-09-10 09:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Being less evil again.
1. Re:There goes Google... by shentino · 2009-09-10 09:24 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Agreed.
  It's my understanding that only orphan works are being included in the settlement, so the only people who are being hurt are
  1) Incapable of protecting their rights anyway
  2) Too lazy to do so, or
  3) Copyright trolls looking to pounce on innocent infringers.
  Mind you, I'd rather have the opt-out deadline be replaced by a zero-liability cease and desist option where someone who proves copyright can have google stop providing access, but can't claim damages.
  But this isn't half bad even not considering the alternatives.
2. Re:There goes Google... by noidentity · 2009-09-10 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's my understanding that only orphan works are being included in the settlement, so the only people who are being hurt are
  1) Incapable of protecting their rights anyway
  
  Wait, I thought we were discussing copyrights? Despite the name, it's not a right; it's a privilege.
3. Re:There goes Google... by wordsnyc · 2009-09-10 09:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Authors Guild represents 8,000 writers (I used to be one of them). There are millions of "orphan" works still covered by US and international copyright law. The Guild has no standing to negotiate for anyone except their members.
  Google has made absolutely ZERO attempt to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the rightsholders of these "orphan" works. I'm one of them. I have been notified by Google about each of my in-print books (five in all), but NONE of my parents' books, even though they were published by HarperCollins, who used to send me royalty checks for those books and would no doubt be happy to tell Google how to reach me.
  The fact that, in desperation, Google agrees to share the fruits of its theft does not make everything OK. They have no right to share what was never theirs in the first place. And the Authors Guild are a bunch of useless whores who stand to make a pot of money off this rotten deal.
  
  --
  Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
4. Re:There goes Google... by jcwayne · 2009-09-10 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Impossible. Google is a huge corporation so they must be evil!
  (Do I fit in yet?)
  No, you're not nearly snarky enough. Try phrasing your sarcasm in the form of a meme.
  
  --
  Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
5. Re:There goes Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 10:04 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I think Google is doing a favour to the general public.
  They just need an easy way to opt out or find the parents of the orphan books.
  Sure some authors will get mad... but having all books at humanity disposal is a BIG step forward for everyone
6. Re:There goes Google... by shentino · 2009-09-10 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Now you know why I don't like class action suits.
7. Re:There goes Google... by UCSCTek · 2009-09-10 10:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I won't claim intimate detail with the status of the "orphan books", but if what I've read is accurate, these are generally books that are out-of-print and not actively managed by the publisher or author. In this case, I say Google is doing a service by bringing to light a wide body of literature that would otherwise either remain unused or even disappear. Insisting on strict enforcement of copyright law leaves everyone worse off: the authors and publishers are still not getting anything because they have abandoned the works, and those who might have actually been interested in the material remain without access to it.
8. Re:There goes Google... by shentino · 2009-09-10 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure it was Google and not Harper Collins that dropped the ball wrt. your parents books?
9. Re:There goes Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 10:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In what way do you think Google is going to get rich off this deal? Under ideal circumstances, it might take 50 years to recompense the enormous cost of scanning every single book in the United States. Can you even imagine the amount of work that goes into that? There's a reason nobody else is involved in this so-called gold mine. And uh, sharing their entire library with all competitors? Money, meet toilet. Flush.
  And yet you're telling me they're doing evil here because they haven't managed to personally track down the heir of two presumably dead writers? And this heir has apparently not even bothered to contact Google himself. Cry me a fucking river. How about you stop and realize how much Google is already doing to support one of the greatest knowledge-preserving enterprises the world has ever seen, and get off your couch and do your own miniscule part to direct the enterprise as it concerns you.
10. Re:There goes Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 10:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Google has made absolutely ZERO attempt to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the rightsholders of these "orphan" works. I'm one of them. I have been notified by Google about each of my in-print books (five in all), but NONE of my parents' books, even though they were published by HarperCollins, who used to send me royalty checks for those books and would no doubt be happy to tell Google how to reach me.
  So that puts you squarely into category three, "copyright trolls looking to pounce on innocent infringers".
  Do you expect anyone in this community to have pity for you? You are denying humanity the benefits of your parents' (out-of-print!) intellectual legacy; then you whine about Google who make it available for humanity, just because you want to wring even more money out of your parents?
  I can't think of any insult strong enough, really.
11. Re:There goes Google... by cpt+kangarooski · 2009-09-10 10:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Google has made absolutely ZERO attempt to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the rightsholders of these "orphan" works. I'm one of them. I have been notified by Google about each of my in-print books (five in all), but NONE of my parents' books, even though they were published by HarperCollins, who used to send me royalty checks for those books and would no doubt be happy to tell Google how to reach me.
  Why don't you tell Google how and why to reach you? The whole 'orphan works' problem here would be taken care of quite easily if the US reverted back to our traditional practice of making copyright opt-in for published works. If an author cares about controlling the work, perhaps because he wants those royalty checks, he can surely spare a few minutes periodically to apply for copyrights, renew the copyrights, and to keep his contact information up to date and on file with the Copyright Office. If he sells or exclusively licenses the rights, then part of that transaction would again involve updating the Copyright Office. So long as the author cares, he can keep his copyright for only a token investment of time and money -- much like we do for patents or trademarks. If the author doesn't care or stops caring, he'll likely fail to apply for a copyright or fail to renew it, allowing the work to enter the public domain sooner. And after all, if the author doesn't care about his copyrights, who are we to disagree with him?
  This worked fine for about 200 years, and it was a mistake ever getting away from it. We need to get back to this right away, making all the necessary changes in the law (e.g. withdrawing from Berne) in order to do so.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
12. Re:There goes Google... by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2009-09-10 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Google has made absolutely ZERO attempt to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the rightsholders of these "orphan" works. I'm one of them. I have been notified by Google about each of my in-print books (five in all), but NONE of my parents' books, even though they were published by HarperCollins, who used to send me royalty checks for those books and would no doubt be happy to tell Google how to reach me.
  So that puts you squarely into category three, "copyright trolls looking to pounce on innocent infringers".
  Do you expect anyone in this community to have pity for you? You are denying humanity the benefits of your parents' (out-of-print!) intellectual legacy; then you whine about Google who make it available for humanity, just because you want to wring even more money out of your parents?
  I think the GP is wrong, but I still do think there's something very fishy about what Google's getting away with. It's a really bad solution to a a real problem, here. I'd support if if Congress made some sort of compulsory licensing for orphaned books, or made it easier for such books to fall into the public domain, but when it's Google and the Authors' Guild doing backhanded deals between themselves, it is just Evil(TM).
  
  --
  Are you adequate?
13. Re:There goes Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 10:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Google has made absolutely ZERO attempt to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the rightsholders of these "orphan" works.
  
  Bullshit. There is no way you would know if they made "ZERO attempts". That pure FLAIM bait.
  
  I have been notified by Google about each of my in-print books (five in all), but NONE of my parents' books,
  
  Why would Google contact you about someone else's books? Are your parents deceased or something? Then that's where copyright should end. Quit crying about not getting paid for something someone else created.
  
  even though they were published by HarperCollins, who used to send me royalty checks for those books and would no doubt be happy to tell Google how to reach me.
  So you are making an ASSumption that HarperCollins would freely give out your personal information to anyone that asks? Nice.
14. Re:There goes Google... by Tacvek · 2009-09-10 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  AFAICT the real results of the settlement is (AFAICT):
  The creation a a new organization, the Book Rights Registry. Out-of-print books will now essentially have a compulsory license, with the BRR as the royalties collection agency. This is not quite a compulsory license system, because rights holder can opt out, but otherwise acts similarly.
  Any organization can scan out-of-print books, and provide limited access to the books[1], and sell full copies of the book. The organizations will need to work with the BRR who sets the prices for out of print books, and also maintains the list of rightholders who have opted out, along with the works in question.
  Right holders can collect royalties from the BRR, as well as set prices for book sales, or prohibit such sales, allowing only the limited preview access, allow only tiny fragment search results[2], or opt out entirely.
  [1]Limited access being only a few pages as with Amazon's search inside this book feature, or Google's current book search for books where Google has a deal with the publishers.
  [2] Allowing only tiny fragment results is like what Google currently does now for in-copyright works where the publisher has not partnered with Google to provide the preview features.
  ---------------
  Now please note, I'm not sure this is the right way to go.
  Even if it is, the way this was created is less than ideal, and nobody has ever explained this clearly to the media, which has led to far more confusion about this than should ever have come about.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
15. Re:There goes Google... by caitsith01 · 2009-09-10 12:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I won't claim intimate detail with the status of the "orphan books", but if what I've read is accurate, these are generally books that are out-of-print and not actively managed by the publisher or author. In this case, I say Google is doing a service by bringing to light a wide body of literature that would otherwise either remain unused or even disappear. Insisting on strict enforcement of copyright law leaves everyone worse off: the authors and publishers are still not getting anything because they have abandoned the works, and those who might have actually been interested in the material remain without access to it.
  But this is effectively going to be 'strict enforcement of copyright law' - only Google will have the rights to electronically reproduce these works, unless of course they generously licence them to third parties (for a fee, naturally).
  A much, much better solution would be to change copyright law so that if no rights holder can be identified after reasonable efforts, a work is deemed to be out of copyright.
  
  --
  Read Pynchon.
16. Re:There goes Google... by caitsith01 · 2009-09-10 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Being less evil again.
  I dunno, obtaining a private court settlement which somehow gives it a private monopoly over works to which neither it nor the other party has any rights sounds pretty damn evil to me.
  
  --
  Read Pynchon.
17. Re:There goes Google... by UCSCTek · 2009-09-10 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't disagree; I bet most of us agree that copyright law is out-of-date. This solution seems to be rather hard to implement though: lots of interested parties, some with deep pockets. What these temporary solutions, such as what Google is doing, can do is bring the issue greater attention and urgency.
  One additional point, while Google would have the rights to its scanned copies, I don't recall it being true that they have exclusive rights to the content itself. Other companies would then be free to replicate Google's activities, making their own databases of scanned books. I may be wrong...
18. Re:There goes Google... by QuantumG · 2009-09-10 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, so *you* are one of those bastards who claims inherited royalties. Die now please and have no children.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
19. Re:There goes Google... by wordsnyc · 2009-09-10 13:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Too late, my spotty little friend. Tell me, should my son be allowed to inherit the business I started, or should it be seized the day after my death and distributed to the masses? If I rent out my house, should he be allowed to collect that rent after I croak? What is so special about intellectual property?
  
  --
  Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
20. Re:There goes Google... by wordsnyc · 2009-09-10 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  Google know just where to reach me -- they sent me notices about my own books directly AND though my publishers. The publisher of my parents' books also knows where I am, and they are legally required to forward all legal notices.
  
  --
  Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
21. Re:There goes Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 14:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If everyone had the rights to publish these orphan books then yes it would be a public service. Google are in effect gaining exclusive rights to all of these works which they can then "license" to others. This is not a public service, this is a money grab by google to exploit a free resource.
22. Re:There goes Google... by caitsith01 · 2009-09-10 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  One additional point, while Google would have the rights to its scanned copies, I don't recall it being true that they have exclusive rights to the content itself. Other companies would then be free to replicate Google's activities, making their own databases of scanned books. I may be wrong...
  I'm pretty sure that the deal is that anyone else who wants to do the same would have to come to terms with the writer's guild, which may or may not be on the same terms that Google's deal is on.
  To my mind a much better solution (ignoring the problems with copyright law and the question of why the guild gets to negotiate these rights in the first place) would be a public schedule of fees that anyone can pay to reproduce any of those works electronically. That way the playing field is automatically level and Google gets no special advantage.
  
  --
  Read Pynchon.
23. Re:There goes Google... by Fian · 2009-09-10 15:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Copyright was established to *encourage* production of intellectual or creative works such that ultimately society as a whole benefits. The carrot to producers of such works was a limited ability to make money through sales of copies. Where does the original intent of copyright say that your son is entitled to make money off your creation? If your son simply inherits your works, where is his incentive to produce? Where is the benefit to society?
  Unlike your rented house, which is a non-copyable physical asset occupying a defined space your book/parent's books are trivially copied and can be transferred and stored anywhere. Why would society want to keep limitations on dissemination of a work when the original creator of that work has passed away and no longer requires an incentive to produce?
24. Re:There goes Google... by dissy · 2009-09-10 15:38 · Score: 2
  
  Tell me, should my son be allowed to inherit the business I started, or should it be seized the day after my death and distributed to the masses? If I rent out my house, should he be allowed to collect that rent after I croak? What is so special about intellectual property?
  It is different because copyright law requires that the work must fall into the public domain, in exchange for the exclusive right to copy that work. That is why it must be distributed to the masses.
  You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the law will apply to you and which parts don't.
  To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
  I am assuming your parents are no longer with us. In that case, no aspect of copyright law can possibly encourage them to continue to write. That is why the incentive should end.
  There is also nothing limited about a book still being prevented from being sold to anyone due to copyright, after the creator(s) of that work have passed on.
  Unless you do provide those books for sale still (It sounds like that is the case, as the publishing company recently sent royalty checks, I can assume the royalties are per copy sold, not a fixed amount in a given time), in which case those books are NOT orphaned works at all. In that case, Google made a mistake here. However it might be more productive to assume it was an honest mistake and Google really does believe it is orphaned. I am willing to bet if you contacted Google and let them know the work is not orphaned but still in print and for sale, that they would reclassify it and not include it at all with the other (real) orphaned works.
  In your examples, you never had to agree to any such law to give up your business the day you die when you started that business. If you did agree to such a contract before starting the business however, I would guess the law would expect you to uphold that. It just is not the case.
  The same goes with your house. You most likely did not agree to a contract that said you must give your house back after you die. You did agree to such a requirement to get copyright protection on your books however.
  Copyright law specifically states what is expected from the authors, you, and the public.
  The writer expects a limited time exclusive control agreement, and in exchange the public expects unlimited and unhindered use at the end of that limited time.
  It is rather alike to not paying your credit card bill, and being shocked that the credit company seems upset with you for it.
  Copyright protection is not free, there is a cost for that protection. If you aren't willing to pay that cost, then a lot of people are not willing to give you copyright protection.
25. Re:There goes Google... by Stuntmonkey · 2009-09-10 16:01 · Score: 1
  Google has made absolutely ZERO attempt to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the rightsholders of these "orphan" works. I'm one of them. I have been notified by Google about each of my in-print books (five in all), but NONE of my parents' books, even though they were published by HarperCollins, who used to send me royalty checks for those books and would no doubt be happy to tell Google how to reach me.
  This about this rationally for a bit. Google is trying to scan every book that's ever been created, by their published estimates over 100 million in all. So far they've scanned 10 million. Exactly how are they supposed to track down rights holders for 10 million works, let alone 100 million? There are no existing databases, and it's a very laborious job to figure out that your parents had children (you), exactly where those children live today, and whether those rights were passed to the children or to someone else. This would cost you $1000 per book to do all this investigative work.
  So the answer is: They can't do this. Nobody can, realistically. From a practical standpoint, these 100 million works will remain ownerless, and thus in a cultural black hole.
  Now given that reality, you can go one of two ways:
  
  The copyright law is the copyright law, and these 100 million works should fade into obscurity, or
  It's in the best interests of humanity to make these works available, even if it means changing (or reinterpreting) copyright law as it currently exists
26. Re:There goes Google... by psiclops · 2009-09-10 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  yeah well, Google made a deal with the writers guild, so why shouldn't anyone else have to? are Google in any way (or would they have a say in) preventing anyone else from making a deal with the writer's guild?
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
27. Re:There goes Google... by CodePwned · 2009-09-10 23:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually the only "whore" (using your words) here is you who are profiting off of work YOU never did (your parents books). That's exactly the kind of thing that has copyright screwed up. The Authors Guild realizes that it's impossible to stop the digital movement. They can either go with it, or go down kicking and screaming like the RIAA and MPAA. The only difference is that they don't have the vast resources to pool from in order to take that stance.
  Fact is, if you make something worth paying for people will pay. They WANT to pay. The people who steal it probably weren't going to pay for it anyway if they got it. I'm not saying that makes it right, but that life.
  I despise how out of print Music, Movies or Books is suddenly this big issue when someone like Google goes... we'll publish them. YOU weren't getting money anyway. You have NOT lost anything. You have EVERY right to tell them to stop if you don't want to publish it but millions of otherwise lost and forgotten to the public works are no longer lost and forgotten.
  Suddenly publishers who were "Oh... lets not print this it's not cost efficient" are like "OH! WAIT... WE WANT TO PUBLISH IT NOW!". Get over yourself. Google is doing something that needs to be done to an industry that is overly controlled. I want artists to get paid for their work... but more importantly I want access to that work.
28. Re:There goes Google... by stocke2 · 2009-09-11 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  and so why should orphaned works, that are no longer printed and produce no income for the copyright holder be protected? So you can hold them back from the world and say mine?
  
  the point of copyright was to protect these works for a time so that authors could make money off of them, and then to be open to the public to promote public good.
  
  The way the government has extended copyright is atrocious and no longer does what it was supposed to.
  
  --
  A Smith & Wesson beats four aces -- Murphy's Law of Poker
29. Re:There goes Google... by blhack · 2009-09-11 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, Google is trying to help you keep getting those royalty checks...
  A lot of these books that they're scanning are out of print, and sitting in the basements of libraries gathering dust. Google has come in and saved them from the recycling bin. They aren't getting copyright on the book, they're getting distribution rights to the scan of the book.
  I seriously do not understand who an Author could *not* like this? If anything, this is going to help your book get into the hands of more people.
  Do you have some sort of romantic attachment to dead-trees or something?
  
  --
  NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
30. Re:There goes Google... by zehaeva · 2009-09-11 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Let us take this to an insane extreme.
  Do you honestly believe that all of the works of Shakespeare should still be controlled by his great great (how ever many) grand kids? Should everyone need to ask him(or her) for permission to use, or modify, 400(ish) year old plays? Should we have needed to track down the scion of Homer to make that movie Troy?
  When is the story old enough that it can be in the public domain? Do you see where treating copyright as an eternal property that can be passed down through the generations would cause the world trouble in the future? all you have ot fdo is imagine what the world today would be like if 500 years ago they implemented perpetual copyright. If you honestly don't think there is something wrong with that then I don't think you have anything else to discuss here.
31. Re:There goes Google... by nametaken · 2009-09-11 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  While I generally agree with you, the "carrot" of exclusivity works for the author, even if it's extended to the children.
  For instance, I'd love to know that if I write a book, my children could profit from it. That might be wrong, but it works as an incentive to the original author to create.
Comebine this with by UltimApe · 2009-09-10 09:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

the new asus ebook reader http://images.google.com/images?q=asus%20ebook%20reader and it looks like books are on their way of the floppy.

--
"Infecting minds with my own memetic virus, one post at a time." Ultimape
1. Re:Comebine this with by WindBourne · 2009-09-10 09:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  About 15 years ago, I got rid of the printer. I figured that the ONLY way to walk away from paper was to not print any (zaurus and newton are wonderful tools). ABout 7 years ago, I quit buying paperbacks. ALl of my new books were either hardcover or leather bound (easton press; great group). Now, I will go only with leather bound/acid free. I figure that top end books will go up in price, while everybody is moving to e-books.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2. Re:Comebine this with by Darkness404 · 2009-09-10 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Surely you are joking right? The Asus Ebook reader isn't E-ink which means two things, one is shorter battery life and the other is more eye strain. Plus the Asus Ebook reader isn't cheap. Yeah, its cheaper than some with E-ink displays but it is by no means a game changer.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
3. Re:Comebine this with by CannonballHead · 2009-09-10 09:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I take it you don't play musical instruments (with sheet music) a whole lot. :)
4. Re:Comebine this with by WindBourne · 2009-09-10 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Cornet in the 70's, piano every so often.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
5. Re:Comebine this with by religious+freak · 2009-09-10 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't even know where to *find* a leatherbound book, I thought that was something they stopped making in the 1800s. Sounds really cool though.
  
  --
  If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
6. Re:Comebine this with by jcwayne · 2009-09-10 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Floppies aren't dead either. I'm getting a torrent together of a Windows 7 installation from floppy. I've got it down to 2361 floppies, but should be able to compress it a little more.
  Just fashion a shank out of one and jab it in your eye. It's bound to be less painful.
  
  --
  Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
7. Re:Comebine this with by Jared555 · 2009-09-10 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I think barnes and noble and amazon sell them. (Of course not for every book, it is usually collectors editions, etc.)
8. Re:Comebine this with by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-09-10 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  I figure that top end books will go up in price, while everybody is moving to e-books.
  I think so as well - paper books will not go away, but they will become expensive, high-quality collector items, like vinyl records.
9. Re:Comebine this with by timbck2 · 2009-09-10 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Easton Press. Their books are hella expensive, but very good quality. They're sold on a subscription basis.
  Barnes & Noble (and probably other publishers) have a few here and there, but they're of inferior quality, in general.
  
  --
  Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
10. Re:Comebine this with by cpt+kangarooski · 2009-09-10 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  You can always get a regular book rebound in leather. It's nice, but pricey.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
11. Re:Comebine this with by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 15:24 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I take it you don't play musical instruments (with sheet music) a whole lot. :)
  Cornet in the 70's, piano every so often.
  Musically inclined, *and* he time travels! A multi-talented individual, indeed :)
12. Re:Comebine this with by DadLeopard · 2009-09-10 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Only problem is you aren't allowed to download the "in copyright books", you are only BUYING access to them on-line! Though I haven't tried the, copy and paste to Open Office trick yet! that might be one way, to get it on your eReader! Calibre does a nice job converting to just about any eReader format you want!
13. Re:Comebine this with by cnoocy · 2009-09-11 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  You read piano music off a Zaurus?
  
  --
  This sig is not the Zahir. Lucky for you.
14. Re:Comebine this with by WindBourne · 2009-09-11 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, old sheet music lying around. There are uses for paper, but the vast vast majority of it does not need to be. I do have to say that since I do not have a GPS, I really miss being able to print out a yahoo map (now use google, but long ago....). They are useful for complex areas. Normally, I just paint the map in my head, but there are some places that have very complex routes.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That was EXACTLY my thought by WindBourne · 2009-09-10 09:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google is basically moving us to the digital era. Companies like IBM, MS, Xerox have worked to keep us locked into a dual economy and make as much from it as possible. I think that if I were other nations, I would be BEGGING google to set up shop in their nations.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:That was EXACTLY my thought by GradiusCVK · 2009-09-10 09:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If you were other nations, wouldn't you be begging Google to set up shop inside you? Sounds... inappropriate.
2. Re:That was EXACTLY my thought by QuantumRiff · 2009-09-10 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  If you made as much profit as IBM selling giant printers (for printing things like bank statements) you would prolong their life too. And Microsoft.. if they didn't have printer drivers as an easy way to royally screw a system up, blue screens, reboots, crawling slow for no reason, then nobody would upgrade to vista or windows 7. Google can't search paper. So they don't care.
  
  --
  
  What are we going to do tonight Brain?
3. Re:That was EXACTLY my thought by martin-boundary · 2009-09-10 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't hurt, though. He could be frozen for the trip home. Nobody would know about the empbryo until a passing Company ship answered the call from the distress beacon.
Interns? by swanzilla · 2009-09-10 09:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Who in the hell is actually going to do the scanning? I'd be wary of accepting an internship at the Googleplex right about now.

--
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
1. Re:Interns? by RoFLKOPTr · 2009-09-10 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Who in the hell is actually going to do the scanning?
  Google has been scanning books into their system for several years using automated scanning mechanisms. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I can tell you that it is definitely not intern-powered.
  ..... did you honestly think that people are sitting at their desk running books through flatbed scanners one page at a time?
2. Re:Interns? by ScrewMaster · 2009-09-10 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Who in the hell is actually going to do the scanning? I'd be wary of accepting an internship at the Googleplex right about now.
  Don't worry. Asok is used to it by now.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
3. Re:Interns? by noidentity · 2009-09-10 09:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Google's book scanner is indeed robotic, and it doesn't need to press the pages flat. It uses two cameras and a light pattern projected on the page so that the curvature of the page can be determined, and thus eliminated via software.
4. Re:Interns? by swanzilla · 2009-09-10 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  did you honestly think that people are sitting at their desk running books through flatbed scanners one page at a time?
  no...with a decent scanner, they should be able to get two pages at a time.
  
  --
  0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
5. Re:Interns? by quickOnTheUptake · 2009-09-10 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  A couple years back I was involved with some people doing digitization and at the time there were basically two options:
  a) unbind the book and just feed it through an automatic scanner. This is fast but not good if you are dealing with old, rare books.
  b)use a special table that is shaped like a V: you put the spine in the bottom of the V, and open to the first page, then a piece of plexiglass (also shapped like a V) drops down and holds the pages flat while two cameras each snap an image of each page. The plexiglass goes up, you flip the page, it drops . . . It took longer but I understand if you have cheap labour it is quite feasable, and can go surprisingly fast.
  I know big libraries are involved in Google's digitization, so I wonder whether the libraries are using student workers to do this sort of work.
  
  --
  Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
  Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
What about non profits? by Hatta · 2009-09-10 09:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Will libraries, project gutenberg, etc also be allowed access to these out of copyright files?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:What about non profits? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-10 09:36 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Was there anything keeping them from having to those out of copyright files in the first place?
2. Re:What about non profits? by wonkavader · 2009-09-10 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  The scanning activity is labor and the data in scanned form -- meaning pixels, not text, and text as a product of OCR, not the text of the book (even though, ideally, those are one in the same) is Google's property.
  I therefore doubt that Gutenberg can have the files. They can link to them, though.
  Can someone else answer this definitively?
3. Re:What about non profits? by quarterbuck · 2009-09-10 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Google has already agreed to provide access to libraries. The plan is to set up a google terminal in libraries so that people can access them.
  It seems unlikely that they will allow Project Gutenberg any access though.
  
  --
  http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
4. Re:What about non profits? by cpt+kangarooski · 2009-09-10 10:14 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The scanning activity is labor
  Well, in the US at least, mere labor is insufficient for copyright to arise. Rather, a copyrightable work (or the copyrightable portions thereof) must be original and creative. Here, Google is engaged in slavish copying; they are copying extant works, so their scans are not original, and they are copying as exactly as they can, so they are not creative.
  and text as a product of OCR
  Again, though, they are copying as exactly as they can manage. This means the machine readable text will also not be independently copyrightable.
  However, the uncopyrightable copies -- that is, the tangible media on which the scans and text are stored -- are Google's property, and they are not obligated to give anyone access to them unconditionally, much less at all. So while Google lacks a copyright on their copies of public domain works, they can condition access to those copies on users promising not to make their own copies from the scans or text, and to not engage in distribution of such copies. If a user did it anyway, it wouldn't be copyright infringement, but breach of contract.
  Of course, Google could allow unrestricted access to those works just as easily. Given their 'don't be evil' ethos, that would be the appropriate thing for them to do.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
5. Re:What about non profits? by HiThere · 2009-09-10 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Only some of them are out of copyright. And we don't know what proportion that "some" is.
  Anyway, the answer is "NO!". Google signed deals with the libraries that had the books to only allow Google to scan the books. (Possibly not all the libraries, but at least some of them.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
6. Re:What about non profits? by pandymen · 2009-09-10 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  The settlement is very clear. Google has "non-exclusive" rights over all the books it digitizes. This means that everyone else simply needs to follow copyright standards. If a book is no longer under copyright, people could do anything with it. If a book is under copyright, people would need to obtain permission and could then do anything with that material. However, Google, per the settlement, is granted rights to every single out of print book unless the author/publisher/copyright holder takes the time to object.
7. Re:What about non profits? by geminidomino · 2009-09-11 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Will libraries, project gutenberg, etc also be allowed access to these out of copyright files?
  Note: Orphaned works are not the same as out-of-copyright works (considering the latter is pretty much impossible anymore. Thanks Sonny!). They are still under copyright, but they're out of print and whoever DOES hold the copyright is unknown.. sort of. I'm not explaining it well, but these aren't PD books we're talking about.
8. Re:What about non profits? by wonkavader · 2009-09-11 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks!!! This is nicely clarified.
What is this??? by MM-tng · 2009-09-10 09:31 · Score: 1

Imagine if this kind of behaviour catches on in corporate America. There would be nothing left to criticize. This could very well be the end of slashdot.
One major concern by JoshuaZ · 2009-09-10 09:39 · Score: 1

From reading TFA it seems that Google is doing this voluntarily. Is there any guarantee that google will do this indefinitely and won't make any associated feeds unreasonably large?
1. Re:One major concern by Saysys · 2009-09-10 09:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  No, but voluntary regulation is always preferable to the innovation destruction inerrant in top-down regulation. It is only when voluntary regulation isn't working that top-down regulation becomes a necessary evil. That someone could use something for evil doesn't mean we need to keep them from using it for good.
2. Re:One major concern by RiotingPacifist · 2009-09-10 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  It would be better if they kept their advantage of having scanned all those books themselves but negotiated a deal allowing anybody to do what they have done!
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
How Is This a Good Thing? by mpapet · 2009-09-10 09:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't you guys and girl get it?
Google is circumventing copyright law and capturing works that are in the public domain. Going forward, they monetize a previously free work eternally.
If information wants to be free, then how *exactly* is that freeing books?

--
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
1. Re:How Is This a Good Thing? by UCSCTek · 2009-09-10 10:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  To me, information freedom includes diffusivity. If no one actually sees the information, e.g. a pile of books sitting in a disused corner of a library, it is not "free". Google is allowing these books to be seen, through digitization and online availability, and asking to be reimbursed the labor cost.
2. Re:How Is This a Good Thing? by Tauvix · 2009-09-10 10:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If a work is in the public domain, then it is no longer protected by copyright law in regards to the possibility of circumventing it. What they are doing is creating a derivative work of a public domain work (which they are free to do, as the original owner no longer has rights in regard to how the materials are used), which they will then own copyright on until such time as that expires and their scans/ocr of the original text enters the public domain, at which point you are free to use their materials to do whatever you like.
  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
  On the other hand, what Google seems to be doing, and what is the contention of The Author's Guild and others, is taking orphaned works, those works still under copyright, but are A) no longer in active production, and B) the owner of the copyright cannot be easily located, and creating a derivative work of those. The legal status of which is questionable at best.
  Additionally, as a derivative work, Google will only hold copyright on any changes they make, not to the original text itself.
  See: http://www.photosig.com/go/main/help?name=help/copyright
  and
  http://www.copyright.gov/
  All of the above only holds true in the USA, laws differ around the world.
3. Re:How Is This a Good Thing? by fan777 · 2009-09-10 10:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe free as in liberating rather than price? I don't mean to threadcrap but I thought Google's intent was to take books that basically nobody have access to anymore and making them available. What use is a previously free work that nobody can read? Ideally, publishers should take the initiative to make all out-of-print, rare, orphaned books available.
4. Re:How Is This a Good Thing? by city · 2009-09-10 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure I do get it yet, but I think I'll at least wait until Google digitizes everything before I get too worked up over it. None of these works do me any good if I can't get to them. And it doesn't bother me if wordsnyc (above) doesn't get paid for his parent's work.
  
  --
  I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
5. Re:How Is This a Good Thing? by samantha · 2009-09-10 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Quite a leap there. Out of print books are not available digitally for the vast majority at all. Someone makes them available digitally and charges a fee to some commercial users. That it no way says the fee will always be there or that it will apply to those who are merely readers. Actually I would be very suprised if they did not drop this fee and only proposed it to have something else to give away as a negotiation point. I am continually amazed when people do not see a step toward much better as good because it isn't an immediate leap to their ideal paradisical situation. They see the step in the right direction as evil. Odd lot these humans.
6. Re:How Is This a Good Thing? by wiggle.e · 2009-09-10 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  How is this not a good thing?
  
  Any given book in the public domain that google scans is just as free as it was before. You could scan a copy and put it on the internet. Google doesn't take any opportunity away from you, but instead gives you relatively easy access to out of print books. don't you think that they deserve to turn a profit from that effort?
  
  As for circumventing copyright law, i don't think that is true either. They entered into an agreement in which the publishers would waive the right to sue. If you publish something without going through any of the ones that they got agreements from then you can still take legal action.
7. Re:How Is This a Good Thing? by Alascom · 2009-09-10 16:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How can one circumvent copyright law for books in the "public domain"? If they are in the public domain, they are free to anyone.
  What you meant to say, was they are making previously unavailable books that are still under copyright available to everyone. They are even providing competitors with access to the works that Google spent a fortune to scan. Nothing prevents Amazon or Microsoft from scanning these books themselves and working out a similar agreement with the authors guild, but they don't want to invest the money since they are already so far behind.
  In the end, everyone (including the authors) benefits because these books will once again be available to the public as they were intended.
8. Re:How Is This a Good Thing? by pandymen · 2009-09-10 18:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Mpapet: Per the settlement, Google has "non-exclusive" rights. If works are actually in the public domain and not copyright protected, anyone else can use the information and profit from it. The issue is not pertaining to true public domain works. The issue is that actual copyright holders have no rights unless they go through potentially convoluted procedures to object. If they do not spend time and money to object to their works being digitized, Google can keep on truckin. Google can profit off their work, and I did not see anything in the settlement that requires Google to pay back royalties (outside of the initial monetary settlement).
Doesn't Google already offer free viewing? by zero0ne · 2009-09-10 10:05 · Score: 1

Doesn't google already offer you the ability to freely view all these books on their site? Can't I just go to books.google.com and browse freely and completely through any public domain books?
The article sounds like it's more "here is an API for all you scumbags if you actually want to charge people for this information, but we are still going to offer viewing of the books on our site for free [with our ads of course]"
I'm not sure how this is bad. Smart users still get free access to all the books, and companies can build a simple application that allows them to charge their dumbass customers money for something that is and should be free
1. Re:Doesn't Google already offer free viewing? by DadLeopard · 2009-09-10 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, for of all the books out of Copyright! But the orphaned book are going to cost you at Google books and you can only read themon-line, you can't download them to read off-line, and the out of copyright ones will cost you most other places also, check out what Sony wants for a copy of The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling!!
It happens all the time already by MushMouth · 2009-09-10 10:16 · Score: 1

Google saw the writing on the wall, they were going to lose, and they were taking a huge beating in the press while losing, and an even bigger one when they would eventually lose. So they did what most companies do, try to find a settlement.
I am not surprised by samantha · 2009-09-10 12:45 · Score: 1

Google's goal is to make all the world's data accessible computationally - indexable, searchable, findable and available to any other computation that can be performed on it such as data mining, concept extraction, knowledge extraction, translation, and so on. It in no way needs to be the sole access path to the data in order to do this. So there is no logical reason it would not offer access te the digitized books through non-google channels. Its plan is much broader and not nearly so evil as trying to own all the information/data.
1. Re:I am not surprised by pandymen · 2009-09-10 18:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  While that sounds awesome, Google is still gaining access to vast quanitities of copyrighted material without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. For every other company in the world, they need to obtain permission first before potentially profiting off of a work (Google will profit from subscriptions to their service). For Google, somehow, they do not need to obtain permission. Rather, a copyright holder needs to go through a process in order to object and have their material removed. While that sounds good and all, it is ridiculous that copyright holders need to spend time and money to assert rights that should be intrinsically part of copyright.
2. Re:I am not surprised by Syniurge · 2009-09-11 03:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Part of copyright, yes.
  But it's also ridiculously impractical to negociate with hundred of thousands of copyright holders when you're going into mass digitalization of out-of-print books. The traditional way pointlessly restrains access to knowledge, and makes it more expensive.
  The laws should be changed so that anyone is free to make works that have been unavailable for a certain amount of time (e.g out-of-print for 1 or 2 years) available again (ideally for free, but if we allow profit making taking the task would be more encouraged).
what I want by samantha · 2009-09-10 12:58 · Score: 1

What I really want is digital versions of all books in my library and all books I will ever care to read. I have no use anymore for dead trees and unsearchable text. I hope someone offers a reasonable price on digital versions of all books I already own.
The Vatican by AmigaHeretic · 2009-09-10 14:53 · Score: 1

Exactly.

The Vatican hiding centuries of mankind's history in it's archives is evil.

Google scanning all our knowledge to be accessed and stored by anyone and everyone seems a lot less evil.
Re:When by caitsith01 · 2009-09-10 15:04 · Score: 1

I'd love to, but when is that going to happen?
My guess is that it will only happen AFTER Google goes through all this legal crap to drag the books back into publication...
Oh, I doubt that very much. At the moment no-one really has a big vested interest in keeping these works subject to copyright restrictions - Google will invest billions in this, and then suddenly it will have exactly that kind of interest and will wail and gnash its teeth if any attempt is made to change the way the law works.

--
Read Pynchon.
It has nothing to do with "future authors" by pandymen · 2009-09-10 18:00 · Score: 1

Actually, if you read the actual settlement that was linked on the page linked yesterday, you would find that Google does not retain any rights on books published in the future. This is a misnomer. Microsoft stated that (paraphrased) Google will obtain permission to perform future copyright infringement through their settlement. However, if you actually read the settlement, you will find that the settlement has a strict deadline (this year), and any books published after that deadline are not covered under the settlement. Microsoft's claim that Google is permitted future copyright violations is true. However, these "future" copyright infringements referred to current out of print books that Google has not yet digitized. I am still against the court settlement in general, and I will make another post tomorrow with more exact info linked form the actual briefs. Bottom line, however, is....technically copyright owners retain their rights to refuse being printed via google books. However, they will need to spend time and money in order to go through procedures to stop google from printing their books online. It really should be the other way around.