India Objects To Google Book Settlement

angry tapir writes "About 15 Indian authors and publishers, and two Indian organizations, have submitted their objections to Google's plan to scan and sell books online. Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head, according to Siddharth Arya, legal counsel for the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation, which licenses reproduction rights to books and other publications."

Comments

This is atrocious!

[the brown guy]

My people will not stand for this, there are over 1000 crore of us!

Seriously though, despite not RTFAing, I believe that googles bookscanning should be an opt in and not opt out process.

Thank you come again

Re:This is atrocious!

[oldhack]

"Crore" is 100k in "Indian". ;-)

Re:This is atrocious!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes. It seems atrocious when there are local prints of any and all books (including new ones) on which no royalties are paid to the publishers. Heck, we just crank up our local presses, and print off any books we want or need... If you doubt me, walk on the indian roads where they sell books on streets, and you'll find most new books, not the publisher print, but local for a fraction of the price. Thank you come again.

Re:This is atrocious!

[the brown guy]

actually crore is one million, lakh is 100 000 :)

Re:This is atrocious!

[the brown guy]

fuck im retarded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system

crore=10 million

I guess my indian citizenship, excessive body hair, and profound scent will be revoked.

Re:This is atrocious!

[gavcam]

actually a crore is 10 million

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore

Re:This is atrocious!

[oldhack]

My bad, but crore I checked is actually 10 mil. What are you, some kinda bogus Indian?

Re:This is atrocious!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the family reunion update, don't stay out too late.

Re:This is atrocious!

[the brown guy]

Technically an Indian, but born and raised in Vancouver. My french is better than my Punjabi or Hindi for example.

Re:This is atrocious!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh the Punjabis who've invaded Canada and UK :)

Re:This is atrocious!

[martas]

opt-in, opt-out, i don't really care. i just want this clusterfuck to end already.

Re:This is atrocious!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess my indian citizenship, excessive body hair, and profound scent will be revoked.

yay!

I am happie for the wifie (speak with head shaking).

Re:This is atrocious!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is all about "taking", never about opt in. It's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission I guess.

Is anyone else bothered by a future where all information is stored electronically? Seems like a revisionist government/corporation could have their way with history just by flipping the doublespeak-bit.

Re:This is atrocious!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey the British invaded India first, but when they left in 1947 my family wouldn't let them leave without taking millions of us :)

Re:This is atrocious!

[FatdogHaiku]

Technically an Indian, but born and raised in Vancouver.

So, technically a Canadian, of Indian decent. Or does being born in Canada not convey citizenship?

Re:This is atrocious!

[ramana8]

India Objects ? Bunch low life (boring authors) are objecting. India doesn't care. Talk about yucky headlines !

Re:This is atrocious!

[Hurricane78]

Damn. At first glance, I read that as

Technically an Indian, but reborn and raised in Vancouver.

.

Care for a game of confuse-a-racist? ;))

Deciding

[Sanat]

I wonder what it would be like to have to decide whether to sell your book or information for a slight profit or have your information available for many individuals who could use it for their own purposes.

I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.

Re:Deciding

[furbyhater]

Thanks for letting us know that you are A Good Person (TM).
Some people might object of a megacorp using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.

Re:Deciding

[DMiax]

I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.

Like Google, you mean?

Re:Deciding

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Some people might object of a megacorp using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.

It sucks when a doctor learns about new medical techniques and then uses them in his practice at an HMO.
It sucks when an Avis or Hertz leases cars built with the sweat and labor of plant workers.
It sucks when a scientist at Dow Chemical uses another scientist's research results as a foundation for his own research.

Re:Deciding

[Rakishi]

Interesting, so I assume you work your day job for free then? After all why aren't you profiting your services to the good of humanity but actually selling them to someone? What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?

Re:Deciding

[zippyspringboard]

I noticed you used the word "work" Would you consider owning copywrite on a 40 year old book that your father wrote as work???

Re:Deciding

[mec08]

Thanks for letting us know that you are A Good Person (TM). Some people might object of a megacorp using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.

Agree !

Re:Deciding

[WegianWarrior]

I too would prefer to share information for the good of humanity, but then I don't live of what I write*...

But Google should have gone for opt-in for living authors, or if the author can't be found, a statement saying they would like to get in touch with him/her so they can ask him/her to opt-in.

*)If you look around the internet you'll find most of what I written since school, available for the cost of having to endure it.

Re:Deciding

[SpeedyDX]

That's kind of a non-sequitur. The GGP clearly implied that if he were to write a book, he would share it for free.

As for the GGP: Some people write books for a living, and that's a perfectly acceptable career choice. Sure, if I come up with a very plausible epistemological account, I would want to share that information with as many people as I can. But I'd also like to be able to SURVIVE.

Let's say that I somehow invalidated the scientific method as it currently stands and replace it with some other method that is fundamentally different and is better able to arrive at truth (For the sake of argument, please allow that this is in principle possible). I think that such an achievement would undoubtedly add value to the world. Do you think that I would be somehow morally inferior if I wanted to be compensated for my contribution to human knowledge? I may not study what I study or write what I write motivated only by greed for money, but that doesn't mean that it's a moral failure on my part to derive the money I need in order to survive or be able to live a good life from the fruits of my study or writing. Same goes with people who write fiction or how-to guides or what-have-you. They are providing something of value at significant cost to themselves.

I don't know if you realize this, but it takes a LOT of time and effort to write a good book. Sure, a sizable portion of the author population want to share what they write to the world, but they need to live. They need to feed themselves, they need to feed their families, they need shelter. How is that a moral deficiency as you imply by your post?

As much as people around these parts like to say that information wants to be free (as in beer and/or speech, depending on who you ask), the fact of the matter is that the process of coming up with that information and writing and organizing it in a way that is clear and comprehensible is not free (as in beer). Money goes in for research grants, people put in tremendous amounts of hours painstakingly researching and organizing their data or information. These people contribute (some significantly, some less so) to the common good of human knowledge. And you don't think that they should have the moral right to some recompense for their investment?

I can't comment on the case proper as I don't know enough about the specifics, but your implication that it is a moral deficiency on the part of an author to expect some compensation when someone makes use of or otherwise consumes their work is ludicrous.

Re:Deciding

[digitalunity]

This is, I think, the most significant argument against copyright extensions. I have no problem with someone living off their own creative works. But when a corporation lives off the work of an individual long since dead, thats a sign of something gone askew.

If 95 years isn't too long, take it to its logical conclusion. Indefinite copyright extensions. Sound absurd? I bet I'll see it in my lifetime, bought and paid for with Disney's dollars.

Copyright was a grant to artists for the benefit of society. We get to enjoy their art years after they produce it. They get temporary exclusivity to make money off it, supposedly to produce more art for us to enjoy. It was a great idea conceptually. Kind of like a patent. The pendulum has swung far, far in favor of artists or corporations. Society is no longer a benefactor of the copyrights they grant.

The pendulum will swing back eventually, but not before populists takes over completely.

Re:Deciding

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But Google should have gone for opt-in for living authors, or if the author can't be found, a statement saying they would like to get in touch with him/her so they can ask him/her to opt-in.

Which would have the effect of making no significant change to the current situation, and the current situation must change for their to be any significant progress.
Make no mistake about it - the problem of orphaned works is huge and intractable under anything like, "opt in." For example, posting a statement saying they would like to get in touch with the copyright holder of an out-of-print work (the author doesn't mean squat under current law, only the copyright holder) will result in nearly zero responses because in many cases no one knows who the holder is, including the holder him/it-self because over the course of events like bankruptcies, mergers, buyouts, etc the details of the individual contracts for out of print works get lost really easily because there is no money in keeping track of OOP copyright ownership details. Even when the records have been diligently filed away, no one with access to those records is going to check if Google's request applies to them because there is no money in it. The records will just sit there moldering away until the records owner thinks they might be able to make money with some of the information in them.

FWIW, if I were trying to fix the current situation I would prefer to establish a global/centralized "opt-out" database, let google maintain it if they want to, and then anyone - not just google - can freely distribute anything that has not been opted-out. I'd also end automatic copyright assignment and go back to the previous system of requiring registration.

Re:Deciding

[selven]

What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?

Most day jobs are of the type where you're sold out - if you make 800 products, 800 people will buy at $50 and 800 people will buy at $0. It's just that their $40000 is going to you, so there's no net harm done.

Re:Deciding

[CanadianRealist]

I've often thought that keeping something in print should be a requirement for copyright.

The extreme case would be letting it go out of print ends your copyright and it becomes public domain. Less extreme would be allowing something to go out of print extends fair use to making complete copies. After all, if it's not possible to buy your work then you really can't claim a loss if someone makes a copy.

This seems a bit like requiring people to defend trademarks in order to keep them.

Re:Deciding

[mcgrew]

I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity

Not just for humanity's good, but for your own. Go to Cory Doctorow's web site and read Little Brother. It's a good novel, but outside the novel but inside the book is a very good explanation of WHY he puts his books online and free. If I've never heard of you there's no way in hell I'll buy one of your books, but if I check one out from the library (or read it on the internet) and like your work, I'm likely to buy a different one.

Nobody ever went broke from "piracy", but many have gone hungry from obscurity. Doctorow's a New York Times best selling author, and he gives some of the credit to the fact that he puts his books online.

Sometimes your own greed and stinginess can prevent you from making a lot of money.

Re:Deciding

[mcgrew]

Make no mistake about it - the problem of orphaned works is huge and intractable

It's huge, but not intractable. The cause is the insanely long terms of copyrights. If copyrights lasted a maximum of twenty or thirty years (originally it was only 14 years), you would have no orphaned works. Change copyright law so that lengths are reasonable instead of insane and the problem is solved.

Re:Deciding

[Dare nMc]

using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.

you'll get notice, google will send you the greater of 63% of Revenues Earned in Google Book Search or $60. At that point you can just take your money, and either let it keep coming, or opt out and send your book back into obscurity.

Re:Deciding

[Dare nMc]

But when a corporation lives off the work of an individual long since dead, that's a sign of something gone askew.

This would still be true without copyright. With copyright, and the Google book settlement, at least google can't keep 63% of the money, they either have to find the copyright holder, or give it to the pool of current copyright holders (and their family can stop this if wanted.) With the copyright expired, Google would be free to sell the work but keeps 100% of the profit. I mean sure anyone else who could find the original book and could scan it themselves can then add it to Project Gutenberg, but Google/Amazon/Barnes&Noble have all figured out how to make a profit off of that as well. (sells nooks, kindles, adverts on their site, that all are quick to redirect you to paid for books as well)

Re:Deciding

[Anonymous Coward]

A shorter copyright duration will not help much with orphaned works. They're orphaned because there is not enough demand for them.

Google is using the orphaned works and out of print issue as a justification to make money off of other people's works.

Google is the furthest thing from a charity or non-profit.

Re:Deciding

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there are those who are in it for the money, probably because that's what they studied to do.

Re:Deciding

[Anonymous Coward]

A shorter copyright duration will not help much with orphaned works. They're orphaned because there is not enough demand for them.

Google is using the orphaned works and out of print issue as a justification to make money off of other people's works.

Google is the furthest thing from a charity or non-profit.

A shorter copyright duration would lead to them no longer being orphaned works. They would become public domain works. This would indeed help with orphaned works.

Re:Deciding

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you realize this, but it takes a LOT of time and effort to write a good book. Sure, a sizable portion of the author population want to share what they write to the world, but they need to live. They need to feed themselves, they need to feed their families, they need shelter.

Has every book you picked up been a life-altering experience, compelling you to generalize several decades of literature? Whenever I go to the bookstore, or even the library, there are profound amounts of garbage I have to sift through to find relevant information. I am sure that some authors mean well, but as far as I am concerned the signal-to-noise ratio in the published world is rising almost as fast as the internet.

Just because it is an effort to be published doesn't mean that:
a) You should be rewarded in essentially perpetuity for it (70 years after your death)
b) You had anything useful to offer.

Frankly, Google is doing ME a service by letting me quickly narrow down information retrieval in a world gone horribly digital.

Re:Deciding

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

A shorter copyright duration would lead to them no longer being orphaned works. They would become public domain works. This would indeed help with orphaned works.

That's not sufficient - because of automatic copyright assignment, anything that gets created gets copyrighted and in the vast majority of cases there is no official record of the date of creation. If you don't know when the copyright term started, determining that the term has expired is very problematic.

Re:Deciding

[Sanat]

I know the differences of their, there, they're, I made the mistake and caught it after posting... sometimes I do like the idea that we could modify our own comment to fix the nagging issues such as spelling, punctuation or a missing word... but the downside is just too great... rewriting posts not to correct minor errors but to modify the content and thus the meaning as well.

Perhaps a trade off would be if the comment has not yet been replied to then it could be open for modification within a ten minute window or something along those lines... but when either the time limit has been exceeded or the comment has a response then editing it is inactivated.

Thanks for the spelling feedback. Posting late at night has its own set of expectations and potential opportunities for failure of many different kinds.
 

Re:Deciding

[petermgreen]

Yes and no, if you have a fixed term copyright then you don't need to know exactly when it was published, only that it was published before a certain date. Worst case if you have no information at all (and most likely do have some information on when the library you are borrowing the copy from obtained it) you can just hold it for the length of time the copyright would take to expire had it been released the day you scanned it.

Unfortunately with the current life plus system you'd have to hold a work for a couple of centuries to be reasonably sure it was in the public domain unless you can find reliable information on when the author died.

Opt out is a valid option

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I used to get called every evening several times by unscrupulous companies trying to part me from my money. They expanded from just calling my home to calling me at the office, then calling my family. What started as a polite brief conversation in which I rejected their offer and asked them to stop calling me became a vicious conversation with yelling on each end of the phone. Hanging up had no effect since they simply called me back. Somehow my phone number was marked as Active and I was harassed incessantly by these goons.

But then I found out about opting out and did just that. Now when I get a call from these telemarketing agencies I make sure I get their name and then report them to the local BBB. It's nice to have recourse when I get called now.

So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone, it's not a terribly huge burden. For a bunch of people who make their living *writing*, what's the big deal in saying, "Hey Goog, don't upload my books. Thanks, Chief Breaks Like The Wind"?

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[Anonymous Coward]

Now when I get a call from these telemarketing agencies I make sure I get their name and then report them to the local BBB.

And how's that working out for you?
Are you under the delusion that reporting them to the BBB actually affects them in any way?

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[biryokumaru]

Chief Breaks Like The Wind

I think they're the other kind of Indian. You know, from India.

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh. Ignorance is bliss, and you're ruining his.

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[DMiax]

It's not about *leaving them alone*, it's about *not using their work*. To go for a Good Analogy: how would you like if the telemarketing agencies directly signed you up for the product without telling you? After all you just have to opt out...

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[Anonymous Coward]

and how about when the next company wants to do it, you going to write them a note too? or how about the 10th, or the 100th? What google is doing is borderline criminal and definitely immoral and unethical. Opt Out sucks when you suddenly have to opt out of them stealing your work. If it is too much effort for them to try and contact the author then they shouldn't be doing this at all.

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[Anonymous Coward]

Compare that to an opt-in system where you wouldn't even have had to bother with them in the first place ...

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[nashv]

And might I add, the actual Indians, not those who owe their name to Columbus' navigational skills.

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[dougisfunny]

10,000 dollar fines if he reports a violation of the national do not call list.

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBB is a private organization that has fuck-all to do with the Do Not Call list. Call your state attorney general's office, or anyone that actually has the power to enforce the law.

Re:Opt out is a valid option

[bingoUV]

So when an author with a handful of books and articles needs to write a single note to Google to tell them to leave them alone, it's not a terribly huge burden. For a bunch of people who make their living *writing*, what's the big deal in saying, "Hey Goog, don't upload my books. Thanks, Chief Breaks Like The Wind"?

Who gave you (Or Google, or US district court, or anyone) the authority to decide what is or is not a huge burden without giving the copyright-holders a hearing?

Communism!

[schmidt349]

God forbid Google should try to catalog, preserve, and make available out-of-print specialty books that are never going to get another run on the presses. I'm a specialist in a discipline (classical philology = ancient Greek/Roman literary studies) that depends heavily on this type of book, and I can't tell you the number of times I've discovered an old (like ca. 1960 or earlier) but important volume in a bibliography that my library doesn't have. I would kill to just be able to dial those books up on Google, but of course I can't because of bloodsuckers like these guys.

Eventually rare but important books are just going to start disappearing, and by the time the problem gets big enough that the right people are aware of it we won't be able to do anything. Thanks a lot, publishers, for destroying untold amounts of information. I hope it was worth it.

Re:Communism!

[Idiomatick]

Mod parent up. Bloodsuckers is the perfect term. Google is already giving them more then they'd have had otherwise.

The issue must be even more prescient in your field. The pain of watching a book about the library of Alexandria fall into disrepair would be palpable.

Re:Communism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why give this power just to Google? Give everyone the right to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, if the registered copyright holder can't be contacted.

Re:Communism!

[LordLucless]

Your problem isn't with people like this guy. It's with politicians who have pushed copyright into the realms of insanity. If works expired in 14 years, they would probably survive to enter the public domain.

Re:Communism!

[atheistmonk]

The pain would be pulpable, even.

Re:Communism!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to call the publishers "Bloodsuckers" but you're missing the issue. As an author, I should NOT have to notify Google, or anybody else, that they can NOT use my copyrighted material. I already GAVE them my opt-out notice when I took out the copyright on the material to start with.

I'm all for preserving knowledge, but it can be done just as well without making it available for copying. Google can archive all the data on the planet for all I care, as long as they don't give my stuff away without me telling them they can. And I shouldn't have to run to a dozen, hundred, or million organizations to say they can't use it, if they want it, they can come to ME.

Re:Communism!

[Anpheus]

What is your solution for all the orphaned works then? It is impossible for an author that cannot be contacted to opt in.

Re:Communism!

[cpt kangarooski]

The solution of course, is registration and renewal.

To get a copyright, an author must opt-in by registering with the various national copyright offices in the countries in which he seeks protection. If he fails to do this within a modest period of time (say, 1 year after the first publication of the work, anywhere in the world, where publication is taken very broadly, or 5 years after creation of the work if unpublished), the work falls into the public domain. For copyrighted works, the copyright term is very short (say, 1 year from registration), but can be extended for another term if the copyright holder renews the copyright before the current term expires; if he fails to do this, the work falls into the public domain. And the number of renewals is limited depending on the class of work (e.g. software might have a maximum copyright length of 5 years, while a movie might have a maximum length of 20 years), letting the work fall into the public domain when it can no longer be renewed and the last term expires.

The forms for registration and renewal would always require the applicant to provide up-to-date contact information. This would be further strengthened by strengthening and enlarging the notice formality, using unique IDs for works, similar to how patents are handled and patented goods are marked. Not only would third parties have a good idea who held the copyright at any given time, but they'd also have a good idea of which copyrights were involved to aid in finding the right records to begin with.

This is by no means difficult for authors. In the US, registration and renewal, by various means, were standard features of our copyright system for nearly two centuries, and we managed okay. The paperwork is roughly about as difficult as a change of address form filed with the Post Office, and in any case, authors encounter plenty of forms in their daily lives just like the rest of us, whether it's taxes, registering to vote, getting a driver's license, filling out an intake form at the doctor's office, etc. They're not children, and don't need to be coddled. There might be fees, but they should be kept to a minimum, merely to avoid having people abuse the system, rather than to raise revenue, or make the system self-supporting, or to tax authors. I'd be perfectly happy with a token $1 fee per registration or renewal.

Re:Communism!

[cetialphav]

What is your solution for all the orphaned works then? It is impossible for an author that cannot be contacted to opt in.

If the owners of a copyright are impossible to locate, then you can actually just infringe like crazy and do what you want. It is not technically legal, but if there is no one around with the right to sue you then there will be no downside.

This does not mean that it is easy to determine if a work is orphaned. Just because someone does not respond to Google's opt-out call does not mean their work has been orphaned.

Re:Communism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't google (or ) still copy and digitize all the books in question, but not release them to the public? Copying for copying sake (read: not distributing) should be fine in this case. And at least this way, when the powers that be do realize the importance of having a book published in 1960 available to the public in 2135, the copies will have already been created and preserved.

This assumes of course, data stored on today's media will still be readable in 2135, time travel has not been perfected, and that has not been taken over by the Pepsi-Cola Corporation.

Re:Communism!

[DDLKermit007]

Actually it kind of does. How many books would an author honestly write? It's not like there are companies all over they need to be concerned about this thing with. Seriously, if they can't be bothered to write a simple letter saying to please take their work down, they either are a hack who no one will care to read anyways, or no one can lay claim to the material anymore. The person likely wrote a 300+ page manuscript, how hard is one more page to write?

Re:Communism!

[SpeedyDX]

This is exactly right, I think. If copyright were held to some reasonable time limit, most works would easily be preserved. Additional changes to copyright could also work to ensure that any reasonably available works are preserved. If, for example, third parties like Google were allowed to scan and store the books without distributing or otherwise making use of them (other than fair use, presumably) until the copyright term expires, then it would allow the archival and preservation of works. Of course, this probably opens a whole other can of worms in terms of other copyright issues.

So really, the problem is not that people want to be compensated for their work (we all do - some of us code, some of us do constructions, some of us cook, some of us write, but we all want to be paid for doing whatever we do), but rather that systems of copyright as they stand are not striking a good balance (or ANY balance, really) between ensuring that people are paid for their work and ensuring the preservation and free use of works for the future.

Re:Communism!

[broken_chaos]

Precisely. I don't think copyright is in anything resembling a proper state, but swapping it out with Google(R) Copyright (Beta!) is not the answer, not at all.

Re:Communism!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be perfectly happy with a token $1 fee per registration or renewal.

So.. everytime you commit changes to a VCS, you pay $1 to register that snippet of code? Also note that there is a lot more countries than just one.

Re:Communism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, stop palpating your organ.
You've been waiting for WEEKS to use that word in a sentence, haven't you?

Re:Communism!

[Rogerborg]

Oh, well, if it's just about money, I guess it'd be fine for Microsoft to take the Linux kernel, close the source off, and throw a bunch of crumpled bills in Linus' general direction, right?

Re:Communism!

[Idiomatick]

Didn't realize palpable was particularly noteworthy... I have wanted to call a republican a misoneist...

On a related note, The symbol for the Dems is a donkey; What was the Rep symbol again? ... Right~~, a fear of change.

And before the bipartisan bitching starts, it was just a joke.

Re:Communism!

[Idiomatick]

That is closing something not opening it. So the example you are looking for would be to open source windows 98 and pay windows for the opportunity. But the analogy still isn't even that good :/

Re:Communism!

[Anonymous Coward]

if they can't be bothered to write a simple letter saying to please take their work down, they either are a hack who no one will care to read anyways, or no one can lay claim to the material anymore. The person likely wrote a 300+ page manuscript, how hard is one more page to write?

Google is the king of search. How hard is it really to find a simple missing person? Really if Google can't be bothered to do one more find...

Is Google going to do national advertising that they are about to scan a particular book? How else is the author to KNOW who has indexed the book? The inverse argument that puts the burden on the individual who created the work when Google has billions to spend on researching the material is really odd.

Re:Communism!

[cpt kangarooski]

So.. everytime you commit changes to a VCS, you pay $1 to register that snippet of code?

Only if you want to try to copyright it (if too minor, it might not be copyrightable) and if it would certainly enter the public domain if not registered (cf. unpublished development inside a business, eventually resulting in a single finished work being published).

And presumably, only if you can't have multiple changes covered under a single registration as a group registration or as a single work.

Remember, the goal is not to make things difficult on authors. Rather, the goal is to ensure that copyrights are only granted for eligible works, with specificity as to what constitutes the work, and only upon the explicit request of the author. In this way we avoid granting copyrights unthinkingly, and unnecessarily.

Also note that there is a lot more countries than just one.

Well, I'm only interested in reforms in the US. If other countries want to reform their own laws, which may involve their own formalities, that's fine with me. Each country should have the copyright laws that are best for its own people; there's no need for uniformity, so long as citizens and non-citizens are treated identically. I would only hope that the countries of the world would try to cooperate to ensure that different formalities in different countries didn't result in mutually exclusive copyrights, forcing authors to choose one country or the other in which to be protected.

But if an author doesn't care enough about a copyright in Pottsylvania to comply with whatever formalities they have, then let the work be in the public domain there. Since copyright typically includes a right over importation, ignoring one part of the world shouldn't disadvantage authors too much in the parts of the world they care about.

Re:Communism!

[Trahald]

This is particularly relevant, because India doesn't have any decent libraries.

I've lived all over India, in all the metros and in half a dozen other large cities and I have never seen a library with a good collection of books. If you ask an Indian which library is the best in town, they'll name libraries such as the British Council Library!
Google can help India by making all these books available to every little town and village.
I piss on these authors who can see nothing beyond their own narrow self-interest.

Re:Communism!

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid Google should try to steal author's (and publisher's) copyrights without their permission under the pretense that 'a book somewhere may not be available without paying Google'. I'm a specialist in a discipline (no one cares about) that depends heavily on stealing other people's writing, and I can't tell you the number of times I've discovered an old (like I'm 20 so anything older than the eighties is, like, ancient) but currently out of print volume in a bibliography that my library doesn't have but I can pay for on Alibris. I would kill to not have to pay for these books myself, but of course I have to because of these people who believe they should decide who gets to republish THEIR books and not Google.

Eventually, according to the gods at Google, rare but important books are just going to start disappearing. I know this because rare books disappear from my university library all the time. No one know where they went. By the time the problem gets big enough that the people who actually want to crib passages from the books are aware of it we won't be able to find a copy that someone on Alibra isn't charging $75 for.

Thanks a lot, Google for wanting to get a slice of the publishing pie. I hope it's worth it.

There, fixed that for you, you big naive lug.

Re:Communism!

[2obvious4u]

Or we could acting like selfish primates and start sharing knowledge. I heard this morning that publishers are raising their prices on e-books. Prices should be going down not up.

We are at a new golden age for information where we have the ability to share and catalog all the knowledge this planet has ever produced. However there is a small group of people who still think it is in the best interest of the world to lock up this information. The Internet was developed to share information. It wasn't developed to be monetized the way it has been. The Internet is about sharing information freely - ALL INFORMATION. No one should have to pay for information of any kind. We should repurpose all the funds we spend on information to actually produce goods and services. The trillions of dollars being spent on information and protecting information could be better spent on anything else. It could be used to feed every person on the planet ending hunger. It could be used for so much more than hording a resource that can be freely given, but the greed of a few is keeping it from reaching every man, woman, and child on the planet.

Copyrights, patents and all intellectual property is holding back the next great advancement in humanity. We finally have a resource that is close enough to being infinite that a communist model would work. Scarce resources require a capitalist market to distribute fairly, intellectual property is nearly infinite and so distributing it equally to everyone is not only possible but what should be done. Copyright is a crime against humanity as a whole.

Re:Communism!

[jecblackpepper]

On the other hand, Google are a multi-billion corporation trying to make even more money off someone else's work. If they want to scan it and sell it then why can't they spend the time and money to get permission. If the work is truly orphaned then apply to the court to rule that it and that they can scan it.

I just don't get why Google should have a special right to breach copyright just because they are a new and trendy company. They aren't trying to preserve material for future generations, they're trying to make a profit, any preservation is a side effect.

Saying that it's not much of a burden on an author to send a letter to Google, is ignoring that Google are just the first, what happens when it's 10 companies doing this, how about 100, how about 1000 a day doing it? I say again, if Google want to make money from someone else's work then the burden should be on them to get permission; that or get rid of copyright all together.

Re:Communism!

[HiThere]

The problem, as I see it, is that Google has a monopoly on this. They had to break the law to get this monopoly, and it took both slick lawyers and a pliant "adversary", but they got a court to give them a global right to copy "orphaned" works that are still within copyright.

Now it's true, someone else could try the same game. Break the law and see if their lawyers are slick enough and their "adversary" is pliant enough and the judge is .... I can't figure out HOW to categorize that judge. If it all works out right, the Google would no longer have a monopoly. Now it would be a duopoly. But take a close look at that process, and see what you think of it.

I'm all in favor of rare and out-of-print books being preserved. I just don't trust a monopoly to do the preservation for me. Google's goals aren't the same as mine, even if they overlap in places. I'd rather trust Gutenprint...but they were shut out of the deal. So was everyone else except Google. (I've heard that Google is going to subcontract producing hardcopies of their work to others, I haven't heard that they've done so. And even if they did, as long as Google gets to act as a monopoly gatekeeper, I'm not going to trust the process.)

Re:Communism!

[Anpheus]

What about corporate crime or accidentally released code? Or open source? In order to maintain the GPL every revision must be copyrighted, otherwise the changes are in the public domain regardless of what the license says.

Re:Communism!

[Anpheus]

http://books.google.com/books?id=MB0PAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=jules+verne&as_brr=4&ei=J5NnS7CdPIXQMtD4pL0M&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Public domain books are full view and they don't charge a thing.

Re:Communism!

[cpt kangarooski]

What about corporate crime or accidentally released code?

Frankly, I'd still want registrations, but if it is someone else's fault that the work was made public, they'd need to be liable for damages.

Or open source? In order to maintain the GPL every revision must be copyrighted, otherwise the changes are in the public domain regardless of what the license says.

OSS would not be exempted. If it is important to the developers that the software be open sourced and that the license on it (e.g. the GPL) be enforceable by means of copyright, then they can register and renew. If they don't care enough (which seems unlikely), then why should I?

Incidentally, this raises the issue of another traditional formality that needs strengthening: deposit. For software, a requirement of copyright ought to be providing the Copyright Office with a complete copy of the software's code, formatted, and with such supplementary information, as the Copyright Office shall require, so that the software can be understood and modified by a person having ordinary skill in the art, so that the work might 1) be more valuable to the public while copyrighted (in much the same way that a copyrighted song can inspire a new style of music by musicians that listen to it, without this constituting infringement), and 2) be more valuable to the public after the term expires, by making it reasonably possible that it could be copied, altered, adapted, but still be viable. While this isn't free software during the copyright period, it is at least inspectable, and that's an improvement.

Re:Communism!

[Rogerborg]

It's taking someone else's copyrighted work, tearing up their rights, and selling access to it. Which is also what Google is doing.

Re:Communism!

[JimFive]

Why can't google (or ) still copy and digitize all the books in question, but not release them to the public? Copying for copying sake (read: not distributing) should be fine in this case.

Probably still technically against copyright because Google does not own copies of the books in question. There is a difference between you ripping a CD that you bought and you ripping a CD that you checked out from the library.

However, I think Google's best option is to perform due diligence in trying to track down the copyright holder and then go ahead and put it out anyway. Google is just trying to avoid a bunch of repetitive lawsuits, but if they can show that the book is out of print (no actual damages) and that they put reasonable effort into finding the copyright holder they should be pretty safe in court. (Safe meaning, found to be infringing but not ordered to pay huge fines or to cease all similar activity).
--
JimFive

Re:Communism!

[Anpheus]

So your solution is to make contributing to open source not free?

Re:Communism!

[cpt kangarooski]

No, it should be free to develop software and make it available to others.

But if a contributor wants to be able to exercise the full power of copyright law in order to have the work not copied, modified, or distributed, except as he wishes, then for that he may need to pay, just like anyone else who wants similar powers.

Re:Communism!

[DDLKermit007]

Actually they aren't breaking copyright. They signed a deal with the guild that the publishers gather around.

Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...

[peipas]

Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head

Good. Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.

Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...

[DMiax]

Do not worry, the settlement will only apply to Google. You are still subject to death penalty if you whistle a copyrighted song.

Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head

Good. Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.

Yes. Its much better now that the law only applies to the populace and not to mega-corporations.

Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...

[centuren]

Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head

Good. Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.

I see this potentially being about more than specific copyright law. There has been such a big fuss about the direction Google has taken with Google Books, and I've read a lot of opinions on Slashdot that point to this and rebuke Google for it. If I'm to interpret this by "Do no evil" then I am hard pressed to sympathise with authors and publishers at all. With ebooks moving more into the mainstream, thanks largely to ebook readers like the Kindle and the ebook stores that pair with such devices, I see more and more parallels to what we as consumers went through with the music industry.

Once upon a time, labels wanted consumers to only be able to buy physical CDs, at prices that many consumers felt was too high ($15-20). When MP3 players became wide spread, the music industry couldn't hold onto that model of selling a high priced CD driven largely by a single hit song or two. Then we had digital download stores, and even subscription stores where you had access to entire catalogues while you were a subscriber. We have that even with movies now.

As ebook readers spread, I see yet another industry threatened by a digital aspect to their business model. You can't watch a cable news show or network talk show without someone plugging a book, even if it's not relevant to the discussed topic. A lot of these books are timed releases, interested in context to what's going on, but not something I'd want to own. Library's lend books, but they are quite limited and may not even get the new releases until the context that makes them interesting has passed.

In short, the publishers and authors profit through those limitations rather than pure quality. If these books could be rented to an ebook reader for a low price, the publishing industry would lose millions, but consumers would get a better deal (read the Amazon vs. MacMillan slashdot discussion for a flood of complaints about ebook pricing). Just think about how the Opera Book club would have played out if everyone could read her latest recommendation for a couple dollars rather than buying a hardcopy for $15-30 to read it one time.

Authors will complain their work is worth the price, but as someone who likes to read a lot of different things and keeps a library of carefully selected books on my bookshelf, there is clearly a range in value when it comes to books. If a campaign aide or government official ghost writes a "tell all" book, it's definitely not worth it's price, although I would otherwise read it once. Other books are brilliant works, and I'd buy them even after having rented it. In fact, I'd be more prone to spend more on the books that I buy, say opting for a nice hardcover edition, because they would become part of my library.

This may largely be a separate issue from Google's battles with publishers and author's groups. Still, I bring it up because if Google manages to find a ebook business model that better reflect how I see the consumer value of books, that's fantastic, and I hope they manage to overcome opposition from everyone who will be forced to face a change in their industry.

Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...

[martin-boundary]

Still, I bring it up because if Google manages to find a ebook business model that better reflect how I see the consumer value of books, that's fantastic, and I hope they manage to overcome opposition from everyone who will be forced to face a change in their industry.

You fundamentally misunderstand Google's proposed settlement. This isn't about a change in the industry, it's about Google (and Google alone) cornering the market.

Google's proposed settlement gives Google alone the right to universal copyright violations in America. Nobody is allowed to do like they do, or they will get sued by authors and publishers as before. Google's settlement with the authors' guild is on behalf of everybody, eg the guild has spoken for *you*, if you ever decide to write a novel, *you*'ve lost the right to sue Google if you don't like what they'll be doing with your book.

It would be great if copyright was reduced *for everybody* and the industry was forced to change, but if that doesn't happen it's best if no single corporation gets a free pass, ie it's best if the playing field is level. If only Google has the right to infringe, then there will never be competition or innovation in the market.

Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...

[centuren]

You fundamentally misunderstand Google's proposed settlement.

This is essentially true, although technically, it's that I don't find the specifics of the settlement particularly interesting until Google's plan comes together and we see what they actually do with it.

This isn't about a change in the industry, it's about Google (and Google alone) cornering the market.

Sounds like a change in the industry to me, but I get what you mean. More to the point, just what market is Google cornering? Out-of-print books? Or is it more about ebook versions of books that weren't digital until Google scanned them? It seems like what the specifics, it's a market that no one was paying much attention to under Google moved in. Of course, I'm not saying this is whole thing isn't potentially bad for all of us. I'm just waiting to see what comes of it all.

Google's proposed settlement gives Google alone the right to universal copyright violations in America. Nobody is allowed to do like they do, or they will get sued by authors and publishers as before. Google's settlement with the authors' guild is on behalf of everybody, eg the guild has spoken for *you*, if you ever decide to write a novel, *you*'ve lost the right to sue Google if you don't like what they'll be doing with your book.

It sounds to me that the Author's Guild screwed this one up, or at least had too much power. It's my (ill-informed) impression that Google has followed copyright law, and the complaints are that there was simply too big a loophole in it. Now I know this is an issue of intellectual property, but all the same, I'm still interested to see what Google will be doing with those novels everyone writes. I'm particularly interested how whatever they do will integrate into products like the Nook or an Android tablet.

It would be great if copyright was reduced *for everybody* and the industry was forced to change, but if that doesn't happen it's best if no single corporation gets a free pass, ie it's best if the playing field is level. If only Google has the right to infringe, then there will never be competition or innovation in the market.

This must be complicated legally by the presence of plenty of companies with the rights to sell digital books. In any case, I think there's still room for Google to come up with a very innovative service, one that might foster more competition in other areas (like ebook readers).

Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing...

[Hurricane78]

Sorry, but this is a particle with a spin of 1/2. You have to turn it around 360 degrees, until it’s on its real opposite side (head).
180 degrees is still bad. Just in another direction. ;)

Wait - Sell?

[Toonol]

I've seen dozens of stories about this, and never got the impression that Google was going to sell the books it's scanning. I thought it was purely free searching and browsing, with google profiting maybe from contextual advertising.

Are they planning selling print-on-demand copies? For cost, or to turn a profit?

Re:Wait - Sell?

[biryokumaru]

Yes, they plan on selling/presently do sell the print-on-demand versions, very cheaply. I haven't had to pay to view any text on Google Books over the internet, though, so I imagine that should remain free indefinitely.

Re:Wait - Sell?

[Pinky's Brain]

The settlement in question which these Indian authors are so upset about was just about the right to publish excerpts though right?

Re:Wait - Sell?

[drinkypoo]

Google has a deal with some books-on-demand kiosk company to sell these out-of-print books via that means. I hear the binding is super-shitty, but if you could optionally get it printed on good paper and with some kind of durable toner (or whatever) you could have books rebound if you wanted to keep them. It might even lead to a cottage industry in bookbinding :)

As a Cherokee author

[Anonymous Coward]

I have just unleashed my ditiyohihi on Google!

For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[Onetus]

Having read the article, it seems like a rather large whinge.

If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.
Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google that Books X, Y & Z are opt-out, or even that ALL books that they publish are to be opt-out?
Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?

Whom deserves the greater inconvenience? Those who actively publish books or those who can't find the authors (dead, recluse, one name among millions) to get permission. Which one of those two is doing it for a living and has the ability to do so? Imho we can't trust publishers to provide information/contacts for authors and books so permission can be sought, when it's a task that won't earn them money. It seems that slating it as an opt-out forces those who want to maintain their control must actively do so, and no amount of spin is going to make the complaint about having to do more as part of publishing seem anything more than a whinge.

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[Todd Knarr]

IIRC, if the author is receiving royalty payments then Google isn't going to scan their works and sell them. The opt-out provision only applies to works where the copyright holder is either unknown or not responding to contact attempts (the class of works referred to as "orphan works"). If as an author you've got works out there that Google won't be able to associate with you, it's your responsibility to tell Google about it. To me, that seems reasonable. The alternative is seeing a large body of work disappear because nobody can legally preserve it, which seems to me to be socially undesirable.

IMO the right response to the Indians is "OK then, what's your proposal for handling this? And it's got to allow for the preservation of orphan works in some fashion.".

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[stephanruby]

Also 14 authors/publishers does not make a lot of people for a country like India. Can't someone in India start a counter-petition? Acquiring more than 14 signatures shouldn't be too difficult these days. With a site like Facebook or its Indian equivalent, it shouldn't take more than five seconds.

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[houghi]

Opt out is NEVER a good thing. But appernetly Google can do so.

I got some copyright. That copyright tells that there is no opt-out. It is all opt-in. So if you, as a company, start to make deals I am not involved in that overstep those rights, you can be sure that I will complain.

What needs to change and can be done by governement is to firstly change the copyright laws. e.g. 14 years and after that it is in public domain. At that moment my rights are not violated and the company (or individual or whoever) can still index it to their harts content after that 14 years.

And to answer who deserves a greater inconvinience, that is easy to answer: the person who does not have the rights. And you are right that you can't trust publishers. However I also can't trust the indexer as they are also profit driven.

You do not have any rights of my copyrighted stuff. At this moment if I write something and have no desire to print more then 100 books, you do not have a right to make book 101, no matter how good or importand it is. If you want to read that content, you either buy one of the books second hand, or convice me to publish book 101. If you want to distribute the content, you better ask permission as you do not have it.

It is not that I am in favour of this system, but what you need to do is slove the cause of the problem, not give ne company rights to ignore my rights.

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[mcgrew]

Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?

Because some people are selfish, stingy assholes. The same kind of people who lock others out of their wifi connection because "I paid for it, why should my neighbor get it for free? I don't care if it doesn't cost me anything to share it, I'm a selfish bastard."

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[Rockoon]

The opt-out provision only applies to works where the copyright holder is either unknown or not responding to contact attempts (the class of works referred to as "orphan works").

Bullshit. What you are suggesting is that for each of the MILLIONS of published works that Google is going to make an effort to contact the rights holders?

Are you serious? Its laughable to even entertain the thought. This is how its going to work: Google will submit a list to BIG PUBLISHERS and if THEY own the rights to or have a contract with the rights holder of any of the material then they will submit an opt-out list right back. Thats it. Thats the extent of the "attempt to contact" that will happen.

Authors who are not currently beholden to a publishing contract from any of the big publishers will have THEIR RIGHTS taken away until they complain. The little guy gets fucked again.

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[Todd Knarr]

Nope, not according to the settlement terms. If the author sues, the burden will be on Google to show they took reasonable steps (at the very least contacting the publisher to get contact info and/or running a Google search for the author's name). If Google can't, they're liable for standard copyright-infringement damages. And even if Google shows they took reasonable steps and the author wasn't contactable, Google's still on the hook for royalties for every copy they make. At absolute worst the author walks away with the same royalties they'd've gotten for sales of their book. The only way the author suffers is if they didn't want the work available at all, and, well, ask Neal Stephenson how well that works (title: The Big U).

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[Rockoon]

Did you even think about that before typing it?

You suggest that an author file suit against Google.. and then.. "the burden will be on google to show.."

I got news for you buddy. Thats not how it works in America. The burden will be on the plaintiff (the author) to show that defendant (Google) did not take "reasonable steps." ..

Your conclusion that "at absolute worst" the author gets royalties is wrong. At absolute worst the author goes bankrupt fighting against a behemoth corporation and ends up with nothing.. not even rights to his work.

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[martin-boundary]

Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google that Books X, Y & Z are opt-out, or even that ALL books that they publish are to be opt-out?

Yes. Economics 101: competition requires a market with several players. A market with a single player is a monopoly.

The (class action) settlement gives Google alone the super-right of ignoring copyright. Fix the settlement, so that every company and every person gets the super-right to ignore copyright, and maybe we can talk about technical hurdles.

why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?

The objection is that a single company gets to make it available to all, with the force of the law stopping everyone else making it available to all. Google gets to infringe copyright with impunity, but everybody else gets sued if they try the same thing.

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[jonaskoelker]

"I paid for it, why should my neighbor get it for free? I don't care if it doesn't cost me anything to share it, I'm a selfish bastard."

Please tell me where your ISP provides you with infinite bandwidth and no usage caps, and I will bring a truck full of hard drives.

I think it does cost you something: a slice of your bandwidth pie. Your ISP may also hold you accountable for the kiddie porn your neighbour downloads.

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative is seeing a large body of work disappear because nobody can legally preserve it, which seems to me to be socially undesirable.

In this regard, think about the IP that was buried when Lernout and Hauspie went down for financial problems. They had the best available voice recognition stuff available. When they were liquidated, the outfit tht bought the assets didn't know how to value the IP wrapped up in the code, so they just sat on it instead of selling it at some price that might eventually prove to have been less than the realized value.

I haven't followed it all that closely, but I think it was the Dragon product, which may sooner or later have been re-released.

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[mcgrew]

I think it does cost you something: a slice of your bandwidth pie.

If I'm trying to DL the new distro and it seems slow I can shut the wifi off. As far as the "kiddie porn" that's a red herring. There just aren't that many pederasts.

Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.

If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then you're likely no longer the copyright holder. I suspect you could not tell the one you sold your rights to that they either must cease publication (no more royalties) or to widen publication (maybe more royalties). If the present owner gets pissed off and decides to screw you by ceasing publication, I doubt there's anything you can do to say them nay.

Same as in software or pharmaceuticals -- the big guy may try to buy the upstart potential competitor out early, then bury the new idea in order to maintain their own current revenue stream.

if copyright expired, this wouldn't be a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright law already got turned up on its head when copyrights stopped expiring (well the technically expire, but the expiration date keeps getting pushed back in a way that nothing currently copyrighted will expire). One of the points of this being opt-out instead of opt-in is to preserve what is essentially the book version of abandonware. If this was opt-in, then books where the copyright owner was not known or disputed or couldn't be tracked down would not be able to be apart of the project. If copyright expired, then this wouldn't be as much of a problem since Google would only have to wait until the copyright expired before making it a part of the project. Since copyrights don't expire, this is the next best option (at least from their perspective).

All of the publishers *did* already opt-out.

[Anonymous Coward]

It says in the front of all their books "Do not copy this book. If you want to copy it, you have to ask us for permission (and receive it) first".

the reason it's opt-out

[bcrowell]

The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print. The authors are probably dead, and the publishers aren't interested in communicating with anyone about the works, because the amount of money they could get out of it wouldn't be worth their time. Therefore it can't be opt-in. The copyright regime is having the effect of making these books permanently unavailable, which isn't doing the authors (or their heirs or their readers) any good. If copyright terms were more reasonable, it wouldn't be such a big problem, but congress has basically decided to keep extending copyrights so that they never expire. That's what's created this huge class of orphaned works. The only way to deal with the problem is to make it opt-out.

Some authors are complaining, after the class-action suit is all over, that it's unfair and they weren't consulted. Well, sorry, but that's how a class-action suit works. They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class, but if you don't see a notification, you're out of luck, and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else. Boo hoo. Go ahead and opt out.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[LandDolphin]

Go ahead and opt out.

I really don't see the problem. If a Copyright holder doesn't want to be involved, they can opt out.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes But I'm Not American - so why does your legal system grant google the right to my work for free?

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[ZorbaTHut]

As a side effect of the same process that lets our legal system grant you copyright over your work. Namely, it's our legal system, in our country, and we can do what we like with it.

If China wanted to remove all copyright from anyone who isn't a Chinese citizen, they would be legally allowed to do so, largely by virtue of the fact that they are beholden to no-one. Legally speaking, this is the same situation.

(You can make a moral argument about it, of course. That's different entirely.)

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[sapphire wyvern]

The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked, and it's being implemented by private enterprise and a trade association and their associated lawyers without any actual involvement of an elected legislature or executive.

I'm all for the creation of a right to scan, archive, and make available orphaned works. I'm happy for Google to do the work and take whatever profit they can obtain from the market for orphaned works. (In fact, I think that if a copyright holder fails to make their copyrighted works available on Reasonable And Non Discriminatory terms, their copyright protection on those works should automatically cease. It should *never* be possible to use copyright to keep culture and knowledge away from public access). However, I think that right should be created by proper modification to copyright law, not by using class-action law to make an end run around the legislative system to create a monopoly on Google's behalf.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[Arker]

You could make the moral argument but it would be mistaken.

I know a lot of eyes will roll but this is exactly the sort of situation where one can see, if one will look, just how critically important good semantic hygiene and objective morality are important to society. If "copyright" were a basic human right then these objections would absolutely be valid, the moral argument solid, and the legal change would be ultimately ill advised and damaging to the species as a whole in the long run.

However since the first is not true - since "copyright" is not a basic human right nor a pure derivative of such - none of the rest follows.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[grepya]

However, I think that right should be created by proper modification to copyright law, not by using class-action law to make an end run around the legislative system to create a monopoly on Google's behalf

  That would be the right position to take if the legislative systems the world over were not simply puppets of Disney when it came to IP laws. If you think that an actual piece of legislation diluting the copyright holder's powers in any shape or form could get through, say, the US congress, you've not been paying attention. I'd rather prefer the "public square" approach that google has taken to bring some sanity to this process.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[sapphire wyvern]

Sadly, I suspect you're correct in your assessment of US Congress (and most other ruling bodies).

Still, it would have been nice if Google's settlement with the Author's Guild permitted bodies other than Google to get the same deal for creation of digital libraries of orphaned works.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes very easy for a writer that doesn't even speak English and makes 20 USD a month to just file some papers (in the correct way) and have them sent to Google, and possibly 200 other companies around the world, in 22 different languages who decided to use your work... all you have to do is opt out...

Seriously, I agree that copyright needs to be reformed, but taking the power from the writer and giving it to megacorps isn't the way to go. Shorten commercial copyright instead.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[Rockoon]

The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.

This is not a good enough reason.

Here is the deal. Right now its just Google trying to get this deal set up, so right now you would have to contact only one entity (Google) and that doesnt seem so bad...

...but you can bet your ass that Google will not hold an exclusive here for very long, because that would be terribly wrong on so many levels (can you say Monopoly?) Microsoft will get in the game, then others. Before you know it, the author will have to opt out on a dozen different services.. then two dozen.. then four.. all of them of course claiming that they couldnt contact him... which brings up another question: How much effort is actually required to contact the owners of the work before its considered "orphaned?" My guess is NONE.

You can't make shit like this law. Its wrong. If you've got a problem with copyright law (as most of us do) then fix the law.. don't extend the problem by giving rights to Google that lets them side-skirt it.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[jedidiah]

> The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked,

No not really. All it's really doing is setting the clock back about 30 years to before when Disney got ahold of American copyright law and bent it all out of shape. This "Google Tragedy" is actually setting things right to a considerable degree.

"Opt out" is also very much comparable to the real property equivalent. So all of you people whining about how "intellectual property" should be treated like the real thing should just STFU. You're getting what you've always whined for.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[jedidiah]

>> The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works
>> out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally
>> because they're out of print.
>
> This is not a good enough reason.

Wrong. That's just about the most valid reason possible.

Someone needs to preserve this stuff and it's obvious that the "owners" have no interest.

Nevermind "opt out". They should simply lose their rights altogether.

It should be "use it or lose it", "publish or die".

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[Requia]

It's really not a huge change at all. The difference is, if Google publishes your book, instead of an expensive lawsuit you let Google know to stop that. And you still get payed for your effort, this just limits Google's liability.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[Rockoon]

Your argument not only dies for being just a generalization, but because its also bullshit.

The definition of an orphaned work is not "the owners have no interest in preservation of the work" like you claim. The definition of an orphaned work in this case is "google couldn't contact them" .. you dont get to change the definition.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[russotto]

Well, sorry, but that's how a class-action suit works. They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class, but if you don't see a notification, you're out of luck, and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else. Boo hoo. Go ahead and opt out.

And that's pretty messed up. A sues B, and they come to a settlement which extinguishes C's rights without his input.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[shutdown -p now]

The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.

It's a very good argument for significant copyright term reduction. It's not a good argument for a settlement which puts a for-profit corporation in a privileged position of being able to effectively violate copyright, and not being held responsible for it, in a way no-one else can.

I mean, why can't I have authors "opt out" of, say, me downloading their books? After all, I can just assume that all books are orphaned unless I get told otherwise, so surely it's better that way?

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[martin-boundary]

No not really. All it's really doing is setting the clock back about 30 years to before when Disney got ahold of American copyright law and bent it all out of shape. This "Google Tragedy" is actually setting things right to a considerable degree.

No it's not. *I* don't have the right to scan old (orphaned) books and make them available on *my* website. *You* don't have that right. Nobody does, except for Google. That's not setting the clock back, that's giving Google an unfair monopoly, and we all know how evil monopolies are *cough*Microsoft*cough*.

Fix the settlement, and give *everybody* the right to publish orphaned works. It's the only way to progress.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[Anonymous Coward]

If google can obtain the right to profit from unauthorized copying of other's work, simply by scanning it, then every other company or individual on earth should also be able to do so, even by simply making a digital copy of google's copy. If to copy a work provides the right to sell copies of that work, how can that principle apply only to google and not to anyone else? The constitution requires that law apply equally to everyone.

Re:the reason it's opt-out

[Anonymous Coward]

Equal protection under the law does however follow, and is a basic premise of law itself, besides being written into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The government cannot constitutionally give google a monopoly right to copy and sell everyone else's work, without giving a similar right to everyone.

The principle, of the superior right of the public or the user to information, will stand once established by google, even as the monopoly to this right for google will eventually be rejected by the courts. Doing so then ends copywrite protection, at least the moment a work is out of print, or perhaps if it takes too long to find a publisher in the first place, and in principle for any other inconvenience to the public or to those who want to copy other people's work or information.

This principle (that privately created information can be sold to the public without permission as long as the seller has copied it) might easily be extended to other private information, such as medical, insurance, legal, and career files, because the legal test involved is convenience to the public, defined as anyone except the owner or creator. Just as a rare book may be useful to only a few readers, your medical history may be useful to only a few institutions: The principle of the superior rights of the user is the same.

Remember, information wants to be free, and privacy is not a contract, just a policy.

Go you good thing!

[Max Littlemore]

That's exactly my thoughts on reading TFA. Especially this:

"It means that the world has fundamentally accepted the concept that anybody, anywhere can copy what they want en masse without permission, and then ask people to opt out", he added.

I was thinking how great it would be if that was how it worked. If copyright owners basically had to contact the users and distributers of works and say "Oi, that's mine, either throw us some money (a reasonable amount) or cease, desist and delete."

Re:Go you good thing!

[LandDolphin]

As long s the "a reasonable amount" is set by the Copyright Holder. They own the rights, and should be free to set the price.

Re:Go you good thing!

[Max Littlemore]

Of course they set the price. They might be willing to haggle with someone who says, "I love your stuff and I can show at least ten people I introduced to your work who hadn't heard of you before, hows about 90% a discount" but they set the final price. I so wish google had got this through the courts without anyone really noticing...

Re:Go you good thing!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

As long s the "a reasonable amount" is set by the Copyright Holder. They own the rights, and should be free to set the price.

No, they do not own the rights - at best they are leasing them from the Public.
Since it is the Public who Grants the copyright in the first place, then the Public should have a say in the pricing too.

Re:Go you good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey I know, the public also pays wages of firefighters, etc. Let's just make them slaves so they have to work for 1 cent per day. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Go you good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey I know, the public also pays wages of firefighters, etc. Let's just make them slaves so they have to work for 1 cent per day.

Nobody is enslaving writers and forcing them to write OR to publish. They were free to write and publish before copyright existed, I think they would survive just about any modification of copyright including a return to a world without copyright.

Re:Go you good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it is the Public who Grants the copyright in the first place, then the Public should have a say in the pricing too.

By "the public" you really mean you.

Re:Go you good thing!

[Hognoxious]

Nobody is enslaving writers and forcing them to write OR to publish.

No, just trying to stop them making a living.

They were free to write and publish before copyright existed

A very few could - ones who had a sponsor, or independent wealth so they could write as a hobby.

I doubt you can name one such author, and I doubt even more that you've read any of their books.

I think they would survive just about any modification of copyright including a return to a world without copyright.

The lucky few, as mentioned above, might. However the professional writer almost certainly wouldn't, unless you'd like to explain how to live on thin air and good wishes.

The optimistic side...

[Asadullah Ahmad]

Didn't they consider that this will indirectly promote their works to thousands of people?

The proportion of people who would go to a library to read about something is getting increasingly small as far as I know. Any form of exposure on Internet will be beneficial to the authors in one form or another.

Just Hindu gods

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you were just counting all the Hindu gods.

Re:Just Hindu gods

[Hognoxious]

Don't be silly, there aren't that many.

He must have been counting their arms.

So, Siddharth A.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Siddharth A., "legal counsel for the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation" eh... Disobeying your father, stealing the ferryman's money, running off... And now you probably don't want my biography to be published either. Kamala must have been a bitch.

Indian Books

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because Indian books are in such demand worldwide. Im off to download a book right now on how to tie a diaper to my head and paint a dot on my forehead.

Google has some trouble

[mec08]

In fact, I support google . He just want to give more use-full information to people on the internet. But he has some trouble, not only in Indian ,Also in my own county,China. Good luck ! google !

oh-so-funny

[iamagloworm]

this is amusing as india is one of the largest producers of copyright protected books, without license, in the world.

Re:oh-so-funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Right ... this is as bad as the US opposing global warming !

Re:oh-so-funny

[benxx]

Now, it's time to give the taste of their own medicine.

Re:oh-so-funny

[nashv]

Based on what reports? I'd appreciate a pointer - mostly because in 23 years of living there - I've found the problem to be the opposite, and have cringed at paying dollar/pound-converted prices in rupees that are disproportionate to the average Indian monthly income. We know those books don't cost that much to print...there is a huge profit margin. I'd love to see Google digitize old books - paper is on its way out anyway.

Re:oh-so-funny

[drinkypoo]

Based on what reports?

How about the third result in a google search for "indian book piracy". And while we're at it, how about you learn to use the internet?

Re:oh-so-funny

[nashv]

As the article puts forth so clearly, piracy is about 6% of the total publishing industry revenue. While I will take the already rather low figures with a grain of salt since the "Indian Institute of Publishing" is just about as independent a source for book piracy as the RIAA is for music piracy. Of course the article does mention what personal experience has already taught many Indians - book costs in India are quite unreasonable , especially foreign printed books. The rise of 'piracy' almost has a Darwinian ring to it. And while we're on the subject of Darwinianism , being cocky is hardly considered a positive trait. Reading and understanding articles would be helpful though, the irony in your sig notwithstanding.

Re:oh-so-funny

[drinkypoo]

And while we're on the subject of Darwinianism , being cocky is hardly considered a positive trait.

It's better than being wrong.

Reading and understanding articles would be helpful though, the irony in your sig notwithstanding.

There's no irony when I'm right. Of course, sometimes I'm wrong. But I still understand what people have written; on this site, usually better than they do. I used to read the dictionary for fun as a child, and that tendency has served me well here in detecting what people have actually said. Sure, I know what they think they said, but they need to be told when they don't. Otherwise, they will never improve; a lack of negative feedback is as good as a medal, on Slashdot.

the brown guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think "India" objects to this deal about as much as the "USA" objects to China's censorship of the internets.

As in, not at all, because it's people and corporations that are objecting, not countries.

Objects in India?

[Jane Q. Public]

Objects in India are going to Google a book settlement? What kind of objects? And why can't they use Bing?

Ultimate Max Burn

[stenlty]

Microsoft and Yahoo are the next largest global players after Google. After that are hundreds of smaller competitors who inhabit various niches. Ultimate Max Burn

So how would opt in work?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how would opt in work? Would the author who is dead and has no relatives or recipients of the copyrights mail google and tell them the book is OK to scan?

Maybe they would email the entire world and wait until everyone in the world has answered "no, I don't own the copyrights" before scanning?

Re:So how would opt in work?

[shutdown -p now]

So how would opt in work? Would the author who is dead and has no relatives or recipients of the copyrights mail google and tell them the book is OK to scan?

Within the framework of the existing solution (which is bad in many ways, chief being that Google gets priority treatment), just set a reasonable period before "automatic opt-in" - say, 5 or 10 years.

If the copyright holder is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

If the copyright holder is dead, how can they want anything? It's orphaned. It's not a human, so it can't want anything, and nobody owns rights to want anything and deserve to have it obeyed.

And how is this different from opt-out?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is this different from opt-out? Except it's run by governments (178 soverign countries last I looked) rather than corporations (three search engines last I looked, with a few pissant little places that couldn't afford this idea anyway).

Google should register with the WTO all books opted out, when they were mentioned and who said they owned it. It should also register all works it has scanned (and anyone else scanning books should be allowed to do this). Anyone in the world can contact the WTO registration and opt out and anyone can dispute the assignment of copyrights.

Paid for by the Authors Guilds around the world as part of the copyright responsibility for commercial copyrights.

For works not registered in the WTO database, you cannot assert statutory damages but CAN assert a revenue sharing system if your copyrights are broken commercially or require that the infringing work be removed. Such works should always carry the (c) symbol if text or movies that normally carry a copyright notice.

Yet this is, again, no different from what Google is currently doing, except

1) Google didn't have to pay the Authors Guild (these authors should go after the US guild, not google)
2) Google doesn't have to keep the list

BUT IT IS STILL OPT-OUT.

Re:And how is this different from opt-out?

[cpt kangarooski]

And how is this different from opt-out?

Because it is opt-in to copyright. If an author fails to opt-in, or if the copyright holder fails to continually renew their opt-in, the work enters the public domain.

True, if Google wanted to scan a copyrighted work, they'd still need to find an applicable exception to copyright, such as fair use, or get permission from the author. But this would massively reduce the number of works still under copyright, because most authors wouldn't care to copyright their works at all, or to maintain the copyright. And for those works that were copyrighted, there would be contact information for the copyright holder that was much more likely to be up to date, allowing Google to more easily contact them if it sought permission.

Above the law

[nawitus]

When Google does a huge scale for profit copyright infringement, they'll make a profit sharing deal. When a student shares 1 song to his friend non-commercially, he gets a $100 000 fine. That's justice in modern world. Corporations are above the law.

since when do...

[jDeepbeep]

Since when do 15 authors constitute "India"?

Re:since when do...

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case its less about the authors, than the book manufacturing industry. (not just publishers, but printing/binding companies.) Because of the low labour costs, Indian printed books are cheap, so are more threatened by people downloading books online than those companies that make high quality bound books.

Karma is a what?

[auberondreaming]

Having bought many an "international edition" of a textbook from this country this seems to be a case of the black hole calling the kettle black.

India Objects To Google Book Settlement

[Anonymous Coward]

After I instanciate an India class, how do I get it to google for "book settlement"?

Re: Not just for humanity's good, but for your own

[ibsteve2u]

Won't fly; sounds too much like common sense, and in this day and age anything "common" is equated to plebeian.

Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

They copy our jobs with impunity, so we should be able to copy their literature.