Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

India Objects To Google Book Settlement

Posted by timothy on from the hey-fellas-let's-talk-this-over-some-more dept.

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."

34 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. This is atrocious! by the+brown+guy · · Score: 2, Funny

    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

    --
    Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
    1. Re:This is atrocious! by the+brown+guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
    2. Re:This is atrocious! by gavcam · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually a crore is 10 million

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

  2. Deciding by Sanat · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    1. Re:Deciding by furbyhater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Deciding by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Deciding by WegianWarrior · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    4. Re:Deciding by SpeedyDX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Deciding by digitalunity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    6. Re:Deciding by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Deciding by CanadianRealist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Deciding by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    9. Re:Deciding by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    10. Re:Deciding by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  3. Opt out is a valid option by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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"?

  4. Communism! by schmidt349 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Communism! by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    2. Re:Communism! by atheistmonk · · Score: 2, Funny

      The pain would be pulpable, even.

    3. Re:Communism! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:Communism! by SpeedyDX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  5. Your tone suggests it's a bad thing... by peipas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Your tone suggests it's a bad thing... by DMiax · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  6. For whom the inconvenient bell tolls.... by Onetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls.... by houghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls.... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      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."

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    3. Re:For whom the inconvenient bell tolls.... by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  7. Re:Wait - Sell? by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  8. the reason it's opt-out by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Find free books.
    1. Re:the reason it's opt-out by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    2. Re:the reason it's opt-out by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  9. Re:Go you good thing! by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  10. Google has some trouble by mec08 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 !

  11. Re:Go you good thing! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  12. since when do... by jDeepbeep · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since when do 15 authors constitute "India"?

    --
    Reply to That ||