Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Offers Scanned Books To Rival Stores

Posted by Soulskill on 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."

35 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft's reply by Yvan256 · · 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 Quothz · · 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.

    2. Re:Microsoft's reply by Zencyde · · 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?
    3. Re:Microsoft's reply by Quothz · · 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.

    4. Re:Microsoft's reply by Anachragnome · · 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.

    5. Re:Microsoft's reply by Dare+nMc · · 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.

    6. Re:Microsoft's reply by Quothz · · 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.

    7. Re:Microsoft's reply by Fizzol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a horrendous abuse of copyright, on par with the Sonny Bono Public Domain Theft Act.

    8. Re:Microsoft's reply by DrEldarion · · 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)

  2. There goes Google... by nametaken · · Score: 4, Funny

    Being less evil again.

    1. Re:There goes Google... by wordsnyc · · 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.
    2. Re:There goes Google... by UCSCTek · · 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.

    3. Re:There goes Google... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:There goes Google... by caitsith01 · · 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.
    5. Re:There goes Google... by wordsnyc · · 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.
    6. Re:There goes Google... by Fian · · 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?

    7. Re:There goes Google... by dissy · · 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.

    8. Re:There goes Google... by CodePwned · · 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.

  3. Comebine this with by UltimApe · · 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 · · 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 CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Funny

      I take it you don't play musical instruments (with sheet music) a whole lot. :)

  4. That was EXACTLY my thought by WindBourne · · 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 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you were other nations, wouldn't you be begging Google to set up shop inside you? Sounds... inappropriate.

  5. Interns? by swanzilla · · 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 noidentity · · 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.

  6. What about non profits? by Hatta · · 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!
  7. Re:One major concern by Saysys · · 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.

  8. How Is This a Good Thing? by mpapet · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Alascom · · 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.

    5. Re:How Is This a Good Thing? by pandymen · · 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).

  9. Re:I am not surprised by pandymen · · 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.

  10. Re:I am not surprised by Syniurge · · 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).