Slashdot Mirror
Authors' Guild Goes After University Book Digitization Projects
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Ars Technica:
"With the planned settlement between Google and book publishers still on indefinite hold, a legal battle by proxy has started. Google partnered with many libraries at US universities in order to gain access to the works it wants to digitize. Now, several groups that represent book authors have filed suit against those universities, attempting to block both digital lending and an orphaned works project. The suit is being brought by the Authors' Guild, its equivalents in Australia, Quebec, and the UK, and a large group of individual authors. Its target: some major US universities, including Michigan, the University of California system, and Cornell. These libraries partnered with Google to get their book digitization efforts off the ground and, in return, Google has provided them with digital copies of the works. These and many other universities have also become involved with the HathiTrust, an organization set up to help them archive and distribute digital works; the HathiTrust is also named as a defendant."
The courts should rule first of all that the guilds have no standing with respect to works of authors they do not represent... which, despite their name, is a lot of them.
... that people get to read these works!
As a writer I understand the tension between wanting to be read and wanting to be paid. Some want only the former, some the latter; I want both, kind of like eat to live and live to eat combined. Such is my right. But I find the resistence to digitization foolish, a fixation on money and a holdover from dead tree books plus a first use doctrine many publishers and authors never liked. It's obstructionist.
As a reader, full speed ahead. I am so tired of books missing at the library or out of print. Then there's the allure of getting a book within thirty seconds. Yes, I'll pay for the privilege, can we please hurry up with an eye to both principles (get read, get paid)? And books in the public domain? Rapture. (Topic for another day: The insane extension of copyright in the Mickey Mouse / Sonny Bono Act.....)
The JSTOR guy wasn't charged with any copyright violations. JSTOR themselves seem to have distanced themselves from the criminal prosecution too by releasing a statement that they will not pursue civil charges and, by implication, they aren't behind the criminal charges. And then last week JSTOR made all of their public domain articles freely accessible to non-subscribers.
On the other hand, Google does need a slap-down here. The people they are "negotiating" with don't have any standing wrt to abandoned works - if they did, the works would not qualify as abandoned. If Google really wants this, they need to lobby for changes in the law. The MAFIAA has no problem buying senators, Google's got more than enough money to buy practically the entire senate. If they don't have a problem with "defensive" software patents, they shouldn't have a problem with defensive lobbying either....
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
To me, this story shows the importance of keeping Project Gutenberg moving forward, slowly but steadily.
a) do not digitize any of the books of authors in the Authors Guild that do not request their books be digitized.
b) pull the books of authors in the Authors Guild from the school library and all curriculum that do not give express permission to digitize their books.
be careful what you ask for because you might just get it and more.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Lets get one thing strait here. For a long time The media industry sought to focus the publics interest. It's hard to market to huge audiences with a wide variety of tastes. With free and easy distribution on the internet, the media industries aren't just afraid that people are pirating their content... their true fear is the availability of content not approved by them. They aren't trying to stop piracy, they are trying to stop the alternative distribution systems that are forming outside of their control. They are trying to destroy the systems that could bring new, different and FREE content to their customers not because their afraid of theft, but because they cannot compete with something that's free and tailored to the consumers needs. They want you to have choices limited to what they've chosen for you, in the format they've decided on, at the price they've agreed on with their "competitors."
First it was stealing, now it's abducted. The hyperbole increases. How long before we will be accused of 'killing' copyright holders? But it makes sense this time; we're dealing with the guild that supposedly represents people who know how to create inflammatory language.
Let us use our own hyperboles:
"With their infinitely extending copyrights, these guys have been commiting mass murder on the public domain!"
"They have totally vivesected our rights to have ideas come out of copyright."
"It's like they're hacking our limbs off, one by one!"
we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.
Well then trot out these authors, or the heirs of those who are dead AND have abandoned their works and lets us sit down and renegotiate. Google has long asked for any information to find these people or their heirs. They are a search company. They couldn't find them. Your level of indignation suggests you know where they are and how badly they have been treated.
Dead before the cut-off date, (i forget the exact date here, but its somewhere in the 20s IIRC) then there is no problem.
Living and already have given permission or withheld it, again no problem.
But this middle ground of unknown authors, who are quite probably dead with no heirs accounts for a tiny tiny number books, which Google will immediately remove if the authors should appear. Too date, not a one of them have.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
the US constitution had it right: copyrights and patents exist for the purpose of promoting progress. the primary goal isn't to give people a living - particularly not to guarantee profits to some company. we need to rethink the whole legal infrastructure around the concept of IP...
They're not suing the universities and HathiTrust over 200 year old books which are in the public domain, they're suing over books which are clearly copyrighted because the US copyright was renewed and has not lapsed, but universities and HathiTrust can't find the current copyright holders. One of the four factors of fair use in the US is the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. In this case, the universities and HathiTrust claim the digitizing these works and making them available to students and faculty is fair use, and the authors/Authors Guilds are claiming this is too broad an interpretation of this factor in determining fair use.
When the borrower dies or disappears, the loaned item is repatriated by the loaner. The orphan books being digitized are works where the author is unfindable. There is nobody to negotiate with. Unless someone like google preserves the works, they will simply turn to dust and disappear forever. Effectively, the author has reneged on the copyright deal by vanishing without a trace and taking the works with him.
If google has wronged someone, let that someone or a rightful heir come forward and say so. Their silence tells us they either don't feel wronged or don't care (perhaps they're past caring due to a mild case of dead).
Consider, if the Author's Guild wins something on the behalf of one of these authors, do you REALLY think they will stick it in a safe until they can track the guy down? Or will they just compound the wrong by stealing the absentee author's rightful awards? Given that copyright has been lengthened several times now, it is quite likely that the authors of some of these orphaned works had every expectation that their books would be in the public domain by now.