I need to make an important factual correction to the above.
The settlement is NOT "opt out" where in-print books are concerned. Google cannot display ANY part of a book that is commercially available without FIRST getting permission from the publisher and author. Even where Le Guin is distributing her own e-book of an older work for $1, it is considered in print for purposes of the settlement; thus, she does not have to opt out. She may not understand this important point.
The only books that Google may use on an opt-out basis are out-of-print books. Since there is, by definition, no current market for those books, I feel that authors have nothing to worry about here. If they start getting money through the Google program, and they don't like it, they can always opt out.
Your position was that Google should be able to scan the books (despite the authors' "exclusive rights") freely, search them and thus profit from them, just not display them. If that's your view, I don't see how you can feel that the class is betrayed by the settlement. Every single member of the class is better off than if Google hadn't been sued. At best, they get some money. At worst, they are exactly where they were before. (Anyone can opt out.)
Google gets "exclusive rights" to nothing. Everything in the settlement agreement is nonexclusive.
Google gets no rights to any book whose author doesn't want to participate. Authors who do want to participate can still prevent Google from making any particular uses that bother them.
I agree that there is legislative work to be done regarding orphan works. That has nothing to do with the settlement. If anything, the agreement will make it easier to resolve orphan works issues.
I thought Google was overreaching in scanning copyrighted books without permission--but let's leave that aside.
How is the class being betrayed? (I was one of those negotiating on behalf of the class.)
If you're concerned about books that are in print, these are not involved. The settlement does not affect them, unless the author and publisher both choose to get involved with Google.
In the case of out of print books, it's true that the settlement enables Google to make them available (more than just search). But that's good for everyone. The benefit for readers is obvious: these books were often hard to find; now they'll be available on line. But authors benefit, too: these books were commercially dead (by definition). Now, they come back to life. If there's any money to be made, it goes mainly to the rightholders.
This headline, and the third-party posting on which the item is based, are both false. Don't take my word for it. The Settlement Agreement is a public document, available at a variety of sites including the Authors Guild's (http://www.authorsguild.org). The section defining Google's right to exclude a book for any reason -- and what obligations they encur if they ever do that -- is on pages 36 and 37. It's worth reading.
This item, and the post to which it links, are utterly false. It really doesn't belong here.
Not one penny from the settlement (or from Google, or from anyone else) will go to the Authors Guild. I was involved in the two years of negotiations with Google, on the authors side, and I can tell you this as a simple matter of fact. But don't take my word for it; there are no secrets here. All the documentation is publicly available.
Whether you are a member of the Authors Guild has nothing to do with whether you are part of the deal. If you are the rightsholder for a book that Google scans, or wants to scan, you are automatically part of the class (for purposes of the class action). But you can opt out.
This is a complicated deal, and many answers to questions of this kind are at the Authors Guild site.
For what it's worth, an ever-so-slightly longer version, lacking a few bits of Times editing, is posted here, at my own site. And may I say how helpful and fascinating the many Slashdot discussions of this subject have been?
Slashdot Mirror
I need to make an important factual correction to the above.
The settlement is NOT "opt out" where in-print books are concerned. Google cannot display ANY part of a book that is commercially available without FIRST getting permission from the publisher and author. Even where Le Guin is distributing her own e-book of an older work for $1, it is considered in print for purposes of the settlement; thus, she does not have to opt out. She may not understand this important point.
The only books that Google may use on an opt-out basis are out-of-print books. Since there is, by definition, no current market for those books, I feel that authors have nothing to worry about here. If they start getting money through the Google program, and they don't like it, they can always opt out.
Your position was that Google should be able to scan the books (despite the authors' "exclusive rights") freely, search them and thus profit from them, just not display them. If that's your view, I don't see how you can feel that the class is betrayed by the settlement. Every single member of the class is better off than if Google hadn't been sued. At best, they get some money. At worst, they are exactly where they were before. (Anyone can opt out.)
Google gets "exclusive rights" to nothing. Everything in the settlement agreement is nonexclusive.
Google gets no rights to any book whose author doesn't want to participate. Authors who do want to participate can still prevent Google from making any particular uses that bother them.
I agree that there is legislative work to be done regarding orphan works. That has nothing to do with the settlement. If anything, the agreement will make it easier to resolve orphan works issues.
I thought Google was overreaching in scanning copyrighted books without permission--but let's leave that aside.
How is the class being betrayed? (I was one of those negotiating on behalf of the class.)
If you're concerned about books that are in print, these are not involved. The settlement does not affect them, unless the author and publisher both choose to get involved with Google.
In the case of out of print books, it's true that the settlement enables Google to make them available (more than just search). But that's good for everyone. The benefit for readers is obvious: these books were often hard to find; now they'll be available on line. But authors benefit, too: these books were commercially dead (by definition). Now, they come back to life. If there's any money to be made, it goes mainly to the rightholders.
This headline, and the third-party posting on which the item is based, are both false. Don't take my word for it. The Settlement Agreement is a public document, available at a variety of sites including the Authors Guild's (http://www.authorsguild.org). The section defining Google's right to exclude a book for any reason -- and what obligations they encur if they ever do that -- is on pages 36 and 37. It's worth reading.
This item, and the post to which it links, are utterly false. It really doesn't belong here.
Not one penny from the settlement (or from Google, or from anyone else) will go to the Authors Guild. I was involved in the two years of negotiations with Google, on the authors side, and I can tell you this as a simple matter of fact. But don't take my word for it; there are no secrets here. All the documentation is publicly available.
Yes, any rightsholder can opt out.
Whether you are a member of the Authors Guild has nothing to do with whether you are part of the deal. If you are the rightsholder for a book that Google scans, or wants to scan, you are automatically part of the class (for purposes of the class action). But you can opt out.
This is a complicated deal, and many answers to questions of this kind are at the Authors Guild site.
Money going to the Guild itself: $0.
Most of the money is going to authors whose books were scanned without permission, and to the setting up of the new Books Rights Registry.
Sure, that's why I wrote "verging on." We all know the venerable history of the word google; and "yahoo," too, is a word with a distinguished past.
Older and sadder, but pretty much the same.
For what it's worth, an ever-so-slightly longer version, lacking a few bits of Times editing, is posted here, at my own site. And may I say how helpful and fascinating the many Slashdot discussions of this subject have been?