Slashdot Mirror
Google Files a Revised Books Settlement Proposal
At 14 minutes to midnight last night, Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers filed a revised settlement agreement with a US district court in New York. Here is the blog post of Dan Clancy, Google Books engineering director. Google has provided an outline of the differences from the original settlement (PDF) and a FAQ (PDF); the full revised settlement (PDF) is also available. In brief, the changes include limiting the settlement to books published in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia; a court-appointed fiduciary to represent the rights of orphaned works' (undiscovered) rightsholders; and further opening up Google's library to competitors in ways that don't favor Google. The new plan was immediately criticized as a "sleight of hand" by the Open Book Alliance, a consortium of Google's opponents including Microsoft and Amazon. The Internet Archive said, "None of the proposed changes appear to address the fundamental flaws illuminated by the Department of Justice and other critics that impact public interest."
"and further opening up Google's library to competitors in ways that don't favor Google"
Why? Isn't Google doing all the work here?
Or are the competitors going to split the costs of scanning the books with Google?
Google does not care what Microsoft thinks. Google does not care what publishers think. Google does not care what you think.
Google's stated objective is to gather, index and make publicly searchable every piece of information on the planet. Books included. They don't care about minor setbacks like publishers or authors complaints, or even lawsuits. Google is going to keep on scanning and digitising books and will quite patiently wait until the day it feels it can get away with putting them online. I imagine that their are literally millions of works sitting on Google's backend servers, waiting for the day when Google can use its muscle to get an agreement. Perhaps you might regard this as a good thing.
Now ask yourself this: What else has Google put on its backend servers?
I remind everyone reading this that aside from the odd token law, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever restricting private companies from compiling and indexing whatever data they want internally. Who knows what kind of information on people and societies that Google is privy to, and what applications they have in store for it. Stop and think about projects like Streetview. A lot of people really do not like the idea of pictures their houses and gardens being put on a globally accessible site, linked to map information. Does Google care? No. They'll continue to gather Streetview data, even in places where it is illegal to put it online, patiently waiting for the day when they can do as they please.
Google is a steamroller. You may think you've stopped them today, but they'll go on gathering information, and indexing it, and making application for it until they can wow a judge, or legislature, or the public with some fantastic application which shows how easy and harmles it is to provide all this data. Meanwhile, we have a private corporation with a now gargantuan databases on the lives, habits and details of the majority of the online population; soon to the the majority of the world population. How far do they have to go, before this becomes wrong?
This company's stated ambition is to know everything. How much do they know already?
May the Maths Be with you!
As it is now competitors cannot scan their own books, it's against the law. Each party should now negotiate their own settlement with the authors guild and since the authors guild has absolutely zero incentive to do that this is a classic anti-trust case. Ofcourse the only real solution here is to stop these stupid class action lawsuits and just reform copyright law. Internet archive and project Gutenberg are at this a lot longer and they would've scanned lot's more books if they where allowed to.
Dyslexics are teople poo
but this version seems marginally better.
Anyone know if there is a Firefox plugin that will automatically digest PDF into plain HTML and then display it in-browser? Yeah, I know it can't be done perfectly.
Google is trying to include a MAP BOOK my friend published 12 years ago. The company he had then is no longer is business, but he is updating the map every few years and publishing with a different company.
Google's OPT-OUT process is confusing and stupid.
Why should they get to sell a book that's only 12 years old, and a book that is in print and updated although under a different company name??
Isn't 12 years a little to recent to grab the copyright and sell, especially when it competes with an update product??
He's having a bear of a time opting out.
While I'm totally on Google's side when it comes to scanning books -- with or without permission -- for the purposes of making them searchable online, I find it outrageous that a lawsuit designed to stop Google from doing that should end up granting them rights they wouldn't have enjoyed before the lawsuit. It feels like a betrayal of the class by a plaintiff with somewhat narrower interests than those of the parties actually represented by the class.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Some licenses for copyrighted works have non-financial requirements on redistribution. One example is the Gnu Free Documentation License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gfdl, which requires, among other conditions: "if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100), the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient". Source code must be made available if the document is a manual for a Gnu program, for instance. One suspects that Google would be producing more than 100 copies in most cases, and thus would be required to make the original document files and relevant source code available, and to plainly notify the recipient of such availability. Also, all copies and derivative works must be available under the same license.
Making the scanned documents available to other distributors is allowed, but only if accompanied by the GFDL text, and their redistribution is also governed by the GFDL conditions. An agreement with organizations which do not represent the copyright holders cannot absolve Google or any other distributor from these requirements. A financial agreement is irrelevant - actually payment for distribution is allowed by the GFDL, but does not cancel its other conditions.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Hi,
I don't know why anyone would think your post is flamebait. The way I see it, it's the simple truth.
Without accusing Google of having evil intentions, they _are_ very powerful, they _are_ gathering and indexing a lot of information, and this is something we need to think about.
As long as Google is collecting and indexing publicly available information, it's fair game. They are making accessible what is already out there, and that is a Good Thing.
But Google doesn't stop there. Any message that passes through them is under their control. Do you use a Gmail account? Do you ever send email to or receive email from Gmail accounts? Do you ever receive email that is also sent to a Gmail account? Congratulations, it's in the system now.
Is this a Bad Thing? I'm not saying that. But I want people to be aware that this is how it works. And keep in mind: for all the concern there is about governments collecting private information, a government only rules in its own jurisdiction, and may be democratically elected. Google is global. Does your vote count?
Sincerely,
An Anonymous Coward
I am sorry, I thing this anti Google stuff is the veriest nonsense, while what Google is doing is very much in the Public Interest.
It goes like this, with GPS the jinn of mapping was out of the bottle, you no longer needed spot-highs, theodolites and thousands of hours work. digital cameras, GPS and drone-aircraft have made wide area mapping cheap, and obsoleted most uses of spy satalites. Streetview is little different, I know that if I dont want people looking into my garden or house I have to build a wall or close the curtains/shutters.
I am fed to the back teeth with Luddites railing against Google for doing, systematically, what is legal, and what anyone could do. As for the vested interests of the MPAA, RIAA, Book & Journal publishers. Librarians and the rest of the so called 'content-industry' the more Google steamroller them the better.
The problem here is not Google, it is silly, ineffective or knowingly corrupt laws: in the US, Congress, strictly following the Constitution, needs to enact sensible Personal Privacy laws (vide France, Switzerland) and to enact and define a short commercial Copyright period of say 12 years.
Then Google can re-open the Library of Alexandria,
Disney will need to make some new films,
and progress and education may trump commercial greed.
For example, Fairchild Camera & Instrument, TI and a nascent Intel stopped the semi-conductor industry by preventing Universities teaching the technology, that is the way to make the USA into a third world country quickly.
Yes, now, 12 years is FAR too soon. He certainly has Bern Convention copyright, in the rest of the world but may need to REGISTER the copyright in the USA but that can be done retrospectively.
..." now seen in the preface of UK books. Copyright persists in the publication and edition, but derived works protects from rip off but not fair-use or scholarly review.
...
I would like a 12 year world copyright period, without registration. Registration was a daft idea invented in the US, as is "The author XYZ... asserts
IAAIL and what your friend needs to do is to write to Google, at its registered office (in your country), as follows
"Dear Google, I am the Copyright owner of XXXX written by me XXXX and published in YYYYYY, please feel free to scan and index this work in your database, however please make sure that all requests to purchase any copies of this work are forwarded to me at AAAAAA. For the avoidance of doubt, this work was copyrighted (registered) by me in ZZZZZZ and I reserve all rights of supply (in any form)."
This is LEGAL ADVICE, and is worth what you PAID FOR IT.
So it is not that hard, and certainly bot a "Bär" (has Slashdot got unlauts right yet?)
When I was a young, 13 year kid, I fought for 6 months to get a British Museum (Copyright Library) Readers Ticket, not normally granted under 18; Why did I want it, for the Catelog, the Index, once I had found what I wanted to read, 16 c theology, in Spanish, and Science Fiction by specific authors, I could order it through the Inter-library Lending System at my Local Library. I quickly became famous for obscure ILS requests. It took me a while to find out that, in Essex, they took the ILS form and sent it to U L Cambridge, to look it up in their catalog, to check the citation before going into the ILS card database to locate a copy ... later, when I could drive, I was invited to read books at the Cambridge UL by the kind Librarian there. This was 1957-1963. I used to make about 3 day trips per year to the BM and spent about 8 hours in the Library. It got better as I got older and could buy a Steak & Kidney pie and 1/2 bitter in a Bloomsbury pub at lunch time.
..." excuse cheat the public and marginalize students and the public. This is a useless begger the children and my neighbor policy so enamored by US corporations. It is silly, knowledge and learning wants to be free for the benefit of all humanity, it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO (TM). I ought to be understood that, if you create a work, and get to monopoly sell it for 12 years you have been given enough and got a GOOD DEAL(TM) then you need to move on and not continue to try to squeeze the fruit for the rest of eternity.
Indexing and wide availability of the index is important! Google does it for me for free, yeh I hve to ignore the adds, but maybe I am not so entitled, but it is better than a two hour train ride.
Professional, for pay indexes, like LexisNexis, OCLC, meet a need, but they have no right to exclusivity, and have to add real value to earn a right of exclusivity, some service like Pacer are simply immoral and just use a "use a computer to
The reason the C-officers of the content-industry feel like they do is (a) Natural, but mis-guided sense of entitlement, (b) the law has been perverted to make innovation un-necessary, and (c) they have starved, and killed their own golden-goose, the creative artists, who now despise them, their Holleywood accounting and mis-treatment. Thus these IDIOTS are between the rock and the hard place, and the internet, which Google understands, provides the creative with a cheap, and un-obstructed route to market. The MainStream media and the ContentIndustry is dead, there is literally nothing they can do to rescue their revenue streams and continue to monetize their horded content.
Independent artists and writers will sell their new work outside traditional distribution, almost all the Music I buy, c $200 per year I now buy direct, with PayPal, on the German Market. I still buy print books, both fiction and professional from Amazon, B&N and FatBrain but I buy as much direct.
The old way is over, and it isn't comming back, Content-Industry not withstanding.