After 7 Years In Court, Google Settles With Publishers On Book Scanning

redletterdave writes "After seven long years of litigation, Google Inc. and the Association of American Publishers have reached an agreement to settle over the search giant's book-scanning project, which will allow publishers to choose whether or not they want their books, journals and publications digitized by Google and accessed via its Google Library Project. The agreement, according to the two companies, acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright holders, so U.S. publishers can choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project, or choose to keep their publications available. For those that keep their works online with Google, those publishers will be able to keep a digital copy for their own use and sell their publications via the Google Play marketplace." Also reported by Reuters, as carried by the Chicago Tribune, and the BBC.

Comments

Intensely idiotic

[MickyTheIdiot]

Like every copyright case initiated by one of the big names, like the *AAs or big corporate publishing houses, this case is INTENSELY idiotic.

Google got the good end of this. Basically the corporate assholes can shoot themselves in the foot and pull their material... and lose money in the long run. Google can provide a free publicity service or you can take your ball and go home.

What a difficult choice....

Re:Intensely idiotic

[ThatsMyNick]

I though the publishers are on the right here. What gives google the right to scan and put up copyrighted work on their website, without the permissions of the copyright holder?

Re:Intensely idiotic

[preaction]

I'm more concerned about orphaned works and the length of copyright causing a work to be completely destroyed before it can be preserved. I understand the desire to keep copyright, and I understand the idea that Google is infringing by creating these digital copies and then providing excerpts for users, but the wealth of knowledge that gets lost because of copyrights that last essentially forever is a real problem that needs a real solution.

Perhaps it's stupid to entrust that burden to a corporation, and it should be the job of a public or non-profit institution, but this knowledge must be preserved.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Perhaps it's stupid to entrust that burden to a corporation, and it should be the job of a public or non-profit institution, but this knowledge must be preserved.

If only the Library of Congress in the US, national library of China, library of Russian academy of science, National library and Archives Canada, and the German National Library existed.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[Lord Bitman]

Is this a trick question? How is "fair use" not applicable?
This is absolutely no different from the "scanning" and "putting up" that google does of every other part of the internet. Why should the fact that it started out in a grossly inefficient medium be any distinction whatsoever?

Re:Intensely idiotic

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The copyright holder should have the ability to "opt-in" and not have to "opt-out". Why should corporations assume they can do anything they want until told otherwise?

Re:Intensely idiotic

[danomac]

Well, look at this this way. When the publishers hoard their material and choose to not publish, it gets lost forever. At least if it's digitized, it'll survive.

Music is a good example of this. There's a lot of music 20+ years old that's no longer in print, and the labels are no longer around. If someone that had a copy didn't digitize it, it's lost forever.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[icebike]

I'm more concerned about orphaned works and the length of copyright causing a work to be completely destroyed before it can be preserved

Actually, (according to the first link) the Orphaned Works issue is still pending, with the Author's Guild still fighting on the behalf of dead or unknown authors and asserting that they, (the author's guild) have standing to represent these dead or unknown authors, and force Google to remove their works.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[s0nicfreak]

If only there weren't many books that all of those refuse to archive.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Is this a trick question? How is "fair use" not applicable?

Depends on how much of the book is being digitally published without the express consent of the copyright holder. A portion of the cover art, the table of contents, and very small number of sample paragraphs seem like a reasonable amount for "fair use". Entire chapters or a large portion of most chapters of a book seems like an unreasonable amount for "fair use".

This is absolutely no different from the "scanning" and "putting up" that google does of every other part of the internet.

Actually the websites that are being scanned are freely available on the internet and Google only provides enough of the website to give the user information on wether or not to visit that website. Also the website can attempt to opt-out preemptively by placing a file in their URL space that informs the web crawler of the author not wanting any of the pages scanned.

Why should the fact that it started out in a grossly inefficient medium be any distinction whatsoever?

You are correct. The copyright holder should have his rights respected regardless of the medium being used.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't opt-in if you are dead, in a coma, clinically insane, etc.

Why should the public, who has granted a limited right to control copying, be denied use of your work after that right has expired because you didn't bother to leave us machine-readable version?

Re:Intensely idiotic

[cheekyjohnson]

What gives copyright holders the right to hoard knowledge?

Draconian laws and bribery.

If I borrow a book from the library and read it to my children, when they themselves did not borrow the book, is that not doing the same thing Google is doing?

It's on an entirely different scale.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[icebike]

I though the publishers are on the right here. What gives google the right to scan and put up copyrighted work on their website, without the permissions of the copyright holder?

You have to sort of pay attention to what was really happening all along....

Previously, you could only get a fair use sample of a book, a few pages at best, in response to a search. You couldn't get the whole book. You got less than what a public library would allow you to photocopy in house.

At no time was google providing entire books still in copyright from known publishers and authors.

Now you get up to 20% on line. (The publishers finally figured out that if you read 20%, you are more likely to buy the book to get the rest).

Re:Intensely idiotic

[spire3661]

It sure as fuck is an argument. Copyright is a SOCIAL BARGAIN. We, The People have every right to tell IP holders to shove it up their ass, if we so desire. And I assure you that people will continue to make great art long after copyright bites the dust. To think otherwise completely ignores human nature.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[Todd Knarr]

Well, for one thing Google isn't putting the works up on their website. They're making a copy of the work to store in their database to be searched, but what appears on the search results page is an excerpt from the book (the same sort you see in Google's search results for web pages) and a link to where the book's available (eg. Amazon). So my question is, why should Google need permission from the copyright holder to index things for search? I classify the objections here the same way I classify objections to freely watching DVDs I've purchased copies of because technically watching it involves making an additional copy into the player's memory.

And as far as I can tell, in the cases where Google's making the work itself available it's in cases where the work isn't in print (ie. you can't buy it anywhere else) and the copyright holder can't be contacted or isn't known (ie. you can't contact them to get permission). In those cases I can't find anything wrong with Google's actions, the publisher obviously doesn't care about profiting from the work or it wouldn't be out of print and the copyright holder isn't profiting because the work isn't being sold and nobody has any way of getting the money to them if it were.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[Ost99]

The publishers rights are not unlimited.
Putting a few pages online could / should be considered within fair use.

Not having someone big do something like this would result in a lot of abandoned works being lost. This is a much more serious problem for society than whatever damage putting a few pages online would do to the publishers.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[GoogleShill]

Absolutely! I'm going to go download the Linux kernel, make my own changes to it and distribute it without providing the source code! Screw Linus and his stupid copyright!

Re:Intensely idiotic

[tilante]

Actually, no - I don't agree to anything. Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, publishers tried exactly what you're talking about - they put a notice in the front of their books stating that you were only licensed this copy of the book, not sold it, and that you were not allowed to resell it. (In some cases, simply that you were not allowed to sell it below a certain price). The Supreme Court held this to be illegal, leading to what's called "The Doctrine of First Sale".

The reason that you're not allowed to copy a book has nothing to do with agreeing with terms - it's because copyright law makes it illegal. It doesn't matter whether the book has a notice saying that you can't copy it, simply has a bare copyright notice, or has no copyright notice at all - it's equally illegal either way.

Now, from a technical point of view, Google is allowing the making copies of copyright material. So that's copyright infringement, right? Well, maybe and maybe not. There are fair use exemptions, and there are precedents in things like libraries having photocopiers so that people can copy portions of books. If Google is making a good effort to set up things in such a way that people can't just copy whole books and make off with them, then there's a good chance that a court might hold that what they're doing is no more illegal than, say, the New York Public Library having lots of book and having photocopiers that people can take them to.

That's what the publishers are afraid of, and that was Google's leverage to negotiate with them.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[tilante]

If the publishers were sure that what Google was doing wouldn't come under fair use, they could have taken Google to court. They chose not to, which means that they aren't sure that it wouldn't be considered fair use by a court.

To give the physical analogy that Google would undoubtedly use, it's common practice for libraries to buy books and allow anyone to browse them in order to determine whether the book is one they're interested in. It's also common practice for libraries to have photocopiers available at a nominal charge, so that people can make copies of portions of the available books. Both of these things are perfectly legal under US copyright law. Indeed, Section 108 of the Copyright Act states that public libraries and public archives may allow patrons to freely copy materials, and cannot be held liable for such copying so long as they display a specific notice on each piece of copying equipment. The end user can be held liable, but the library or archive cannot.

Thus, there's ample precedent that what Google is allowing through their online archive is, in fact, perfectly legal. This is why the publishers chose to settle rather than go to court - they were afraid that a court might allow Google even greater leeway.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[sexconker]

It sure as fuck is an argument. Copyright is a SOCIAL BARGAIN. We, The People have every right to tell IP holders to shove it up their ass, if we so desire. And I assure you that people will continue to make great art long after copyright bites the dust. To think otherwise completely ignores human nature.

"Social bargain" and "social contract" are phrases used by people who have no logical or legal basis for an argument, and want things their way just because.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[TheSwift]

Just a thought... what if your boss reduced your pay by 50% and told you that "if you're only doing it for money, then you're doing it for the wrong reason"?

Of course the only reason I write is because I enjoy it. And submitting any of my work for publishing would have reward in and of itself, but to do so would require that I devote an enormous amount of time that I could otherwise spend earning money and providing for my family, which, right now, I consider the more important task.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[TheSwift]

I assume you're referring to human's nature to create?

What about human nature to be selfish? Hell, what about the human nature to survive by having a profession that is actually lucrative? It's easy for us, the consumers, to demand that all creators do their work for free because we only look at the exorbitantly wealthy publishers who profit from them. Do I like copyright laws? No, I don't, but to jump blindly to the other extreme is just naive. Just my two cents.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[icebike]

It doesn't matter is google was making them available online in whole, in part, or not at all.
They violated copyright when they copied them in the first place. And they copied books they didn't even own! They waltzed into public librarians, took over a room, some tables, and a library employee for a couple of weeks, and photographed every book they could find. "It's ok, we're allowed to do this because we're Google!"

No they didn't.

Copyright allows you to copy your own copy of a book, AND It allows you to give Fair Use Excerpts to your friends for free.

In most cases for current production books, they just bought them off the shelf.

They didn't waltz in to libraries, they asked, and they paid big grant money, and had the consent of the librarians who were all
on board with the project.

Don't confuse the ancient out of print book effort with the scanning of current books in your haste to post the hate.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[spire3661]

In contrast to those that buy law to get what they want... Social Bargain is the apt term to call the exchange of limited time and scope monopolies for future culture enrichment. Copyright is supposed to be a balance of allowing creator enrichment while enriching society in the long run. We are now asking where is the balance to be struck in the age of trivial information exchange. The problem IP has is it flies directly against Liberty and so we must use great caution when setting its limits. Right now caution is abandoned and we are allowing the IP holders to encroach Liberty too far.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[CCarrot]

Sorry buddy, "because FUCK the copyright holders!" is not an argument. You may be right in saying that we should have the right to do what we want with what we've purchased, but play the Devil's advocate for a moment...

The year is 2016: Every book that has ever been printed is now considered "public domain" since copyright laws have been abolished and you can find any literature you want just by googling the title and author. Sound great? Well it also turns out that books have annually been published 80% less since the copyright laws were struck down. Why is that, do you think? Perhaps it's because there's no longer any motivation for authors to publish their books since they aren't paid any money once they are published. They are made immediately available for the public's viewing. All the author gets is good feeling that people are reading their work. Reward enough? 80% of authors would say no.

Obviously it's a hypothetical argument, but I can say that as an aspiring novelist, my motivation to finish my book would be lessened if I knew that even if my work went viral, I would have nothing to show for it except for a few book readings at coffee shops.

I'd like to add one little wrinkle to your oh-so-pessimistic future.

Authors across the globe join together in a Kickstarter-esque crowd sourcing micropayment service, so if people read their latest book, love it and want to see another, they contribute some $ to the writers 'next book bucket' to support it. That way, the writer knows ahead of time if there is sufficient interest in his/her writing to justify creating a new work. Doners would indicate at the time of contribution whether they prefer to receive the new book in e-format or dead-tree format (shipping to be paid once the book is ready to ship). And, to keep the fraudsters out of it, if the author doesn't produce a new work within a certain timeframe (barring delays from family emergencies, illness, etc.), their bucket gets dumped into a general administration fund for the site, or refunded back to the doners, or donated to charity, etc. etc.

Personally, I would love to be able to support my favourite authors directly, without propping up the stagnant publishing industry (other than TOR and Baen, those guys rock! :) Even better if we could directly support expansion of specific series / characters / universes. I have way too many "really wish they'd written a sequel to that" books on my shelves...

And hey, would this model work for music too? I wonder...

Re:Intensely idiotic

[cpt kangarooski]

Cory Doctrow famously has all of his books in Creative Commons. You can download them for free legally if you don't want to pay. He does alright.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[cpt kangarooski]

And then there is their hard on for microfilm.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Fold

In ancient times all people who came into the city of Alexandria were searched for books. Any books that were brought into the city which were of interest were copied in order to add to the collection of the great and famous Library of Alexandria, the biggest and best archive in the classical world.

But only a few works of antiquity which would've been found there have survived to the present day. Most were lost to decay, fire, deliberate destruction, etc. Some books survive only as notes written by a student. Some we only know the titles of. Many, not even that.

Archives are good, but what ultimately preserves knowledge is copying and distribution. The works that survived were works with lots of copies around the world, frequently being recopied and further disseminated. We'll soon have the ability to all carry around a full copy of the entire Library of Congress in drives we can fit in our pockets or on a keychain. It would be better if we used them productively, rather than suffering the embarrassment of copyrights used in such a way as to impede the use, dissemination, and preservation of knowledge -- and for nothing more than money.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[LordLimecat]

Copyright is a SOCIAL BARGAIN

No, its a legal one, enshrined in US law.

We, The People have every right to tell IP holders to shove it up their ass, if we so desire.

Not when our founding "social contract" establishes the protection of IP, we dont. Once things are in law, generally that isnt an option-- laws arent there as a suggestion.

That this got modded insightful is a little depressing; are driving laws also a social bargain that you're free to ignore if you so desire? Which laws are the ones you can ignore?

Re:Intensely idiotic

[hairyfeet]

What I want to know is why the hell doesn't this apply to ALL works where the authors are missing/dead/unknown is beyond me. How many games from the 70s through mid 90s are in this kind of limbo where nobody knows who owns what anymore? And what about all the indie labels that have died out in the past 30 years?

We are allowing too damned much of our history to end up in these "legal limbos" where nobody can do a damned thing with it and that is just wrong. All content that an author can't be easily found should be allowed to be treated as Public Domain unless/until someone who can actually show ownership shows up, otherwise all this great stuff is gonna end up lost.

But of course i've supported a "use it or lose it" clause for patents and copyrights for years, where if you don't offer it at a reasonable price somewhere easily accessible it should revert to PD, just so we don't end up with a ton of work in limbo where some corp doesn't want to do anything with it but doesn't want anyone to have it either. For an example look at something like the cult game Wild Arms, where the developer tried to buy the rights back several times only to have the publisher refuse to sell yet refuse to do anything more with the IP either. in cases where they aren't gonna use it they should lose it, simple as that. At the very least force them to renew the copyright at set intervals with a higher fee for each renewal, that way they'd have incentive to decide whether to actually use the property or give it to the Public. As it is now they can sit on stuff for decades and not do a damned thing with it so by the time anything DOES end up PD frankly there aren't any copies left worth having, its just wrong no matter how you slice it.

Re:Intensely idiotic

[icebraining]

Paulo "Pirate" Coelho.

...and in the rest of the world?

[Roger W Moore]

so U.S. publishers can choose...

What about the rest of the world? If the US publisher of a particular book says 'no' and the British publisher says 'yes' does the book get scanned or not? Does it get scanned but censored in the US? What about books with no US publisher?

Re:...and in the rest of the world?

[bill_mcgonigle]

What about the rest of the world?

Hey, that's what the legal system and copyright law get you. 196 different settlements required.

Oh, another bulllet point for the "IP is damaging" list.

Re:...and in the rest of the world?

[cpt kangarooski]

The last thing we want is a uniform global copyright law; it would inevitably be terrible for most of the countries involved.

Better to have each country write their own copyright laws (or not) from scratch, with the one core principle being that it should best serve the people of that country -- not authors, not publishers, not people elsewhere in the world. The only things I'd want to see done globally are 1) national treatment so that anyone who seeks a copyright in a given jurisdiction isn't discriminated agains on the basis of their nationality, citizenship, language, etc. Whatever the locals can get, foreigners can get too. 2) That copyright laws not be mutually exclusive in such a way that an author would have to decide between getting a copyright in one jurisdiction or another. Getting rights one place shouldn't shut you out of another.

Author's Guild lawsuit still alive

[Animats]

Remember what happened here. Google tried to rewrite copyright law through litigation so that Google would have the exclusive right to digitize and resell works in copyright, subject to paying fees through some clearinghouse. The judge didn't go for that. The agreement now just affects material controlled by members of the Association of American Publishers.

Re:Author's Guild lawsuit still alive

[Anonymous Coward]

They never wanted an exclusive license. They just wanted a license. People painting it as "exclusive" just weren't willing to go through all the trouble to scan the stuff on their own.

Re:Wow! What a victory!

[icebike]

Pretty much, yes.

Although from the beginning Google would scan books from the affected publishers, it would only put fair use amounts (often only a couple pages) on the web. Essentially what you could photocopy in a public library.

Now they can put up to 20% online, far more than most libraries would photocopy for you, and any publisher can ask the book to be pulled, which I predict none will do.

Took 7 years for common sense approach?

[realsilly]

That's ashamed it took 7 years to agree to something that summed up sounds so reasonably easy to agree to.

*sigh* sounds like the lawyers milked both sides for all they were both worth.

The media industry wins again

[nurb432]

And the citizens lose, as free access to knowledge takes another step backwards.

I hope Google does the right thing

[DickBreath]

Don't be evil.

I hope Google does the right thing and publishes a list of all publishers who opt out of Google's book scanning project. The list should be public and searchable.

That makes it clear to authors which publishers are clueless. if an author publishes his book with one of these publishers, the author just made sure his book is not searchable by the best search tool on the planet.

As a consumer, not only will I not happen to find any books from these clueless publishers, I would like such a list so that I can actively avoid buying from such clueless publishers.

Let evolution take its course. Dinosaur publishers who don't want Google searching their books. Etc.

Ass shoving is not a human right

[istartedi]

Copyright *is* a social bargain, but nobody has a right to "ass shoving". The copyright holders have a right to perform their work without being exploited and/or being forced to seek wealthy patrons as their only source of income. The General Public has a right to receive the productions of the IP holders without being subject to disproportionate penalty for violations, undue terms of restriction, or other features of a system that might skew things too far in favor of the other party.

Neither side has an absolute "ass shoving" right over the others, because as usual there's a HEALTY BALANCE that exists somewhere between absolutism on either side.