Slashdot Log In
$125 Million Settlement In Authors Guild v. Google
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Oct 28, 2008 09:12 AM
from the something-had-to-give dept.
from the something-had-to-give dept.
James Gleick writes "Authors, publishers, and Google are announcing a huge settlement deal today in their lawsuits over the scanning of millions of copyrighted books in library collections. Google has agreed to a huge payout for books that were scanned without permission, but now they'll be allowed to scan the books legitimately. Most important, they'll be able to put millions of books online, including those still in copyright — not just for searching and not just in snippets. There is a groundbreaking new licensing system meant to make the books as widely available as possible while protecting the authors' copyrights and enabling them to share in the revenue. Some will differ, but personally I think this is a wonderful outcome, for readers and for authors alike."
Related Stories
[+]
Authors Guild To Members: De-link Amazon.com 458 comments
theodp writes: "Angered by Amazon.com's practice of offering [prominently placed] used editions of relatively new titles, the Authors Guild is urging authors to replace Amazon.com links on their web sites with links to Barnesandnoble.com and BookSense.com.
Amazon spokesperson Patty Smith insisted the policy really "ends up helping authors and publishers" although neither the author nor the publisher receives royalties from Amazon's used book sales, and Smith could not cite an author or genre helped by the availability of used editions.
" CD: I'd imagine they don't want us to go to our local used book stores either? This is the second time they've tried to call Amazon to task for this.
[+]
Technology: Google Responds to Authors Guild Lawsuit 383 comments
Phoe6 writes "Google has responded to the Authors' Guild lawsuit of "massive copyright infringement". They point out that the Library Project is 'fully consistent with both the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law and the principles underlying copyright law itself, which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews.'"
[+]
Technology: Tim O'Reilly on the Google Library Project 287 comments
dkleinsc writes "The New York Times is running an op-ed piece(free registration required) by Tim O'Reilly arguing that the Google Library Project is a good thing for authors in general, and suggests a lawsuit by the Author's Guild against Google is acting against authors' best interest."
[+]
Technology: Google Book Search Settlement Receiving Criticism 119 comments
waderoush writes "While James Gleick, Lawrence Lessig, and other pundits have reacted positively to this week's proposed settlement of the publishing industry's lawsuit against Google over the Google Book Search project, a deeper study of the agreement turns up some worrisome provisions that could make online access to books much more costly and difficult than it needs to be. Harvard University's libraries, for example, declined to endorse the settlement over concerns that it provides no mechanism for keeping the cost of access to books reasonable. And while the parties to the settlement have made much of the clause providing public libraries with free full-text access to Google's database of over 7 million out-of-print books, Xconomy has a post pointing out that this access is restricted to exactly one Google terminal per library. So, you can read books for free — as long as you're the first person to get to your public library's computer room in the morning."
[+]
Google's Struggle To Reach Authors — of Every Book Ever Written 153 comments
eldavojohn writes "There's no lack of news surrounding the settlement of Google's controversial move to digitize books — but how do you even start this endeavor? A New York Times story reveals the obstacles they face just to get the word out that they want to settle with publishers and authors everywhere. They turned to a world-wide ad campaign to start the $125 million settlement process and they're spending $7 million to $8 million in paper print ads and telephone hot-lines (handling 80+ languages) to reach as many people as possible. From the article: 'We looked at how many books were published in various areas and we knew from the plaintiffs and Google that 30 percent were published in the US, 30 percent in industrialized countries. The rest of the world is the rest.' That's quite the herculean task! Hopefully Google's efforts in digitizing books will breathe new life and revenue into authors and publishers the world over."
[+]
News: Questions Linger Over Google Book Rights Registry 107 comments
We've discussed the fallout from Google's settlement with the Authors Guild a few times already. Now the issue is made pointed again by a Wall Street Journal editorial claiming that the settlement will ruin a functioning copyright system if it is finally ratified, as expected, in June by a federal court. Reader daretoeatapeach writes: "In the US this will establish a Book Rights Registry where authors can opt-in to 63% of the revenues of each book, the rest going to Google. While previously Amazon had cornered the market on e-books, Google's partnership with Sony will create a serious dent: 500,000 books to Amazon's 250,000. Though Google is currently only releasing the books that are in the public domain, they ultimately plan to sell the 7 million e-books they've scanned (and counting). This raises a lot of questions about the future of publishing: Do we want only one company (e.g. Google) controlling access to information? Should publishers get a cut of the money, at least as long as their book is being scanned? Will broader access to trade journals affect their relationship and reliance on libraries? If, in the future, more authors opt out of the traditional publishing model, when will this hit the 'recession-proof' book industry? And has the publishing industry learned any lessons from MP3s?"
[+]
Technology: Opting Out of the Google Books Settlement, Pro & Con 125 comments
Here are diametrically opposing view on what authors should do about the upcoming deadline to opt out of the Google Books settlement. Miracle Jones writes "The William Morris Agency has come out strongly against the Google Books settlement for its clients, citing the fact that the settlement creates a non-competitive marketplace for a whole new product (orphan books), in addition to containing provisions that will make it impossible for writers to remove books from the database after 27 months have passed: 'We believe that the license being given to Google to publish and display with impunity out-of-print "orphan" works (where the rights owner is unknown and estimated by the Financial Times to be between 2.8 and 5 million books out of 32 million books protected by copyright in the United States) will open the door to establishing Google as the most comprehensive database, potentially a monopoly, with unfair bargaining power.'" On the other side of the debate, James Gleick writes "With the deadline approaching for 'opting out' of the Google Books settlement, the Authors Guild has posted an aggressive explanation of who it thinks should do that: no one. Not a single author in the world, it argues, stands to benefit from removing himself or herself from the class. This comes as part of a new set of 'Answers' meant to push back against what the authors group thinks is widespread confusion about the settlement; they also address questions about just what kind of money we might be talking about, and what kind of control authors will have over Google's use of their work."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I can has source material? (Score:4, Funny)
Good now it will be easier to find source material for all the obscure topics on my Wikipedia to-do list.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, they should be paying Google for the free and wide-reaching exhibition of their writings.
Re:I can has source material? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they wanted their writings available for free, then why would they bother to publish in the first place?
Content creators deserve some rights to their works.
Parent
Re:I can has source material? (Score:5, Informative)
If they wanted their writings available for free, then why would they bother to publish in the first place?
Cory Doctorow answered you question in the forward to Little Brother [craphound.com] far better than I can.
Parent
Re:I can has source material? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you steal a book, and keep it permanently without compensation, that makes you no better than the Plantation Masters. IMHO.
Wow. Hyperbole anyone? Last I checked we are not:
In case you weren't aware, you can dislike a particular viewpoint without making strained comparisons to slave holders (or any of the other favorites, e.g. Nazis).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ye would feel differently if, after you finish writing a beautiful program, your employer said "thanks" and took it without paying you. What you are doing when you take an electronic copy of a book without payment is no different.
Re:I can has source material? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. You're just making them work without pay for their creations.
I didn't 'make' them do anything.
How would you like to spend time creating a beautiful piece of programming & your employer just says "thanks" and takes it w/o paying you?
Your right that would suck. Fortunately I neatly avoid this by requiring that I be paid in regular chunks throughout development, and if the payments were to cease I would cease handing over code. It works quite nicely.
Parent
Re:I can has source material? (Score:4, Insightful)
They worked without pay from me, too, but they still created.
Parent
copying a book = plantation master? (Score:5, Funny)
When you steal a book, and keep it permanently without compensation, that makes you no better than the Plantation Masters.
Really? Stealing a $5 item is akin to kidnapping entire families, beating them into submission and keeping them as slaves? Are you smoking crack or just a lawyer for the RIAA or the MPAA?
How about if I just make an unauthorized copy of an item, in violation of a term to which I never agreed? Am I now just a person who kidnaps people, beats them for a few weeks and then lets them go?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, not all slaves were "beaten into submission". He was referring to the Roman slaves which, varying, could simply be people who did what they were told to do -- fed, boarded, but not allowed personal freedom to earn money, etc.
Even the American slave wasn't always toiling endlessly in the fields until the slavemasters came out to whip them in for their gruel. Some of them had great report with their masters and were included on the decisions of the day -- were they free? Certainly not. But neither were
Re:I can has source material? (Score:4, Interesting)
OK.. slow down a bit:
We are not telling the authors to give all of their books for free (nor work in dark dank dungeons with burly leather clad masters whipping them into submission)
The issue is part of the complicated world we are moving into. In the past a work had severe cost to bring to the people and so the business model made as much money as possible from distribution over a short period of time and then those resources were moved to a newer piece of material.
Those books in their remaining form dropped in price significantly leading to an excellent used book market for extremely cheap (or free at your library) spreading the knowledge to the masses.
Now those costs are high in the short term but the work can now be distributed extremely cheaply AND indefinitely.. The issue we've run into with just about everything is publishers trying to now keep their old entry level pricing going forever with a perpetual hold on the material. Think all the fun battles with MPAA/RIAA this is the same thing ONLY with the help of a massive "donation" by Google (services and settlement $$$) plus a very solid outlook on the part of the literary big business (at least the educational institutions involved) we get a MUCH better solution that benefits all involved.
I know someday (maybe/probably even now in the dark) Google's power will corrupt as power always does but for the time being it is enjoyable to watch what they may accomplish trying to follow a "Do no evil" philosophy.
Parent
Re:I can has source material? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which books? Because if they did I guarantee you it was because they had the right to. Either the book was in the public domain or the rights to present it that way were already obtained.
Name the books, otherwise, I call bullshit. I've used the service and I know it only provides snippets unless it has negotiated the rights to more.
From Google: [google.com]
Parent
at last. its f*ckin 21st century ffs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Like Lord of the Rings?
Re:at last. its f*ckin 21st century ffs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
If it were up to me, yes (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not the grandparent poster, but if it were up to me, copyrights would last less than the average human lifetime.
To paraphrase the early United States Congresses, "nobody will ever need more than 28 years of exclusive rights." On average we live longer now so 28 years is a bit short in today's terms.
If it were up to me, the maximum term of copyright protection would be somewhere between 50 years and the the average expected lifespan of a 4 year old at the time the work was created. Where in between? We should have a national discussion on this not controlled by special interests to determine it.
Why age 4? 1) works created by kids under that age generally more "play" than "creative," and generally have very little market value, and 2) it removes infant mortality from the equation.
I would require that after the first 10-20 years or so, the public gets a non-controlling financial interest in the copyright: You can renew copyrights in 10- to 20-year increments, but with each increment you have to promise to forward an increasingly-higher percentage of any royalties to the national treasury. Royalties previously paid that extend into the renewal period would require a pro-rated payment to the treasury as well. You would of course have the option to not renew and let your work fall into the public domain.
Going forward, works re-published 10-20 years after creation which are legally published but without a (c) mark are presumed to be in the public domain unless the publisher can show it was done in error. Today's automatic copyright-on-creation would still be in play, but they would expire after 10-20 years if not renewed. To protect existing works and contracts based on those works, the "new regime" would only apply to works created after a certain date. I don't like the current regime's long terms but messing with it with a blunt instrument like imposing a new regime on all existing works introduces a whole host of problems. It's far better to solve the orphan works and other problems with a more finely-tuned solution.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One big problem with this is that copyright is not only about the money, but also about controlling what the work is used for.
Example: Imagine that I wrote some nice music 20(Or whatever the limit is) year ago. Anybody who would want to buy it have already done so, so I would lose money by registration for a new longer copyright. But if I let the work fall into public domain $EVIL_CORPORATION* could use it to advertise their new product. And I would have that.
And if I wrote a book, I would hate to have to h
Re:If it were up to me, yes (Score:5, Interesting)
You're dead. What do you care where/how your music is used? Besides, it's a sad fact that if "evil corporations" did not use 200-300-400 year old music, a lot of that stuff would be forgotten by all by a few college professors and music historians.
Those 30 or 60 second ads have the benefit of keeping those ancient works "alive" in the minds of millions, rather than falling into disuse.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I definitely agree that we need a national discussion on this. Unfortunately, the idea of Public Domain seems to be dead in many people's minds. They just don't see why someone's "property" (a book they wrote) should be "taken away from them by the government" after X years. They just don't understand the importance of the Public Domain. So I think we need discussion, but also education as to why a strong Public Domain is good for everyone. (Also, education on why copyright terms are limited and the go
Re:If it were up to me, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:at last. its f*ckin 21st century ffs. (Score:5, Informative)
Like Lord of the Rings?
Yes. Consider that there are some Sherlock Holmes stories that are still under copyright in the USA.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice assertion. Which ones?
The stories contained in Case Book of Sherlock Holmes are under copyright in the USA until 2016 to 2033 [sherlockian.net], depending on the story.
Gee kid, I guess my assertion is true.
Re: (Score:2)
Cow cashes?
You mean, like these [geocaching.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in a couple of weeks you can either go tell McCain or Obama your thoughts on this and see if they'll start to put it together. Heck, tell them both since they'll both still have an office. But take my advice, don't hold your breath...
Re:at last. its f*ckin 21st century ffs. (Score:4, Funny)
The good news: Barack Obama will redistribute copyrights.
The bad news: You were assigned copyright for "The Joy of Gay Sex Volume 3: Extreme Fisting"
Parent
US Only. (Score:2)
Because this agreement is the result of a U.S. lawsuit, it directly affects the Google Book Search experience for those accessing the site in the U.S." From the Press FAQ(PDF) [authorsguild.org]
Seems to me like we need cash cows... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, i would be tempted to agree with you if only for the practical political point that ending copyrights would gut the finances of liberalism and I happen to be a Republican.
But...
Um, just having a quick look at the finances of the USA, and I have to ask, what exactly is someone allowed to make any money in this new world. Oil companies are not allowed to earn half the profits of apple, coal companies are not allowed to operate, car companies can't make money... seems to me we have plenty of companies not making money doing something and perhaps that, we might be better off if someone did make money.
Perhaps the best way to accomodate IP longevity is to have a copyright property tax. So... if you hold the copyright to a work, you either pay the tax or put the work into the PD. That way, if something is genuinely valuable, like Lord of the Rings, then, it can still produce income and benefit the economy and be accessible through normal markets, but, the rest of the stuff won't be locked up, away from people's view, like old movies or books out of print.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New idea! Just stop giving them subsidies! Then you don't have to regulate them.
It's easier to say "sorry" than ask permission... (Score:5, Interesting)
This may have been Google's strategy all along.
Step 1: start scanning and distributing copyrighted books without permission.
Step 2: writers and publishers get pissed off and sue.
Step 3: settle and obtain permission to go even further.
It worked. Now Google will have control over electronic access to a massive amount of printed material.
This may be just a silly conspiracy theory. But on the other hand would a company like Google, with massive financial and legal resources, naively embark on a blatant copyright infringement project? Not likely; it's obvious they had a strategy in mind from the beginning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that it wasn't infringment. This was just another mosquito attempting to suck blood from what it saw as a rich target.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The slashdot incorrectly-implemented-meme filter must be broken. Your post should have been rejected. CmdrTaco, can you please look into this? Thanks.
step 1 - illegally allow access to copyrighted material
step 2 - say "see how popular it is?" and apologize and pay small fine
step 3 - ???
step 4 - profit!
There, fixed that for you.
show me the money (Score:4, Interesting)
And where is the money for this settlement going? Is it actually going to go to some authors who had their books scanned or is the majority going to the lawyers and the guild itself?
Re: (Score:2)
In one of the FAQs there is information on how you can a portion of the money if you were an author who was scanned before the aggrement.
Google Books rocks (Score:2)
Re:Google Books rocks (Score:5, Funny)
Truly, an inspiring tale of intellectual growth and of skeptical inquiry into the nature of reality.
As a longtime student, it always brings some warm fuzzies to my heart to hear of how others have done their bit to advance the knowledge of humanity by challenging the status quo.
Parent
You obviously weren't a psychiatry student (Score:2, Interesting)
A psychiatry student would've read the professor's book, shared it with a few classmates, had some of the classmates turn in papers that appeared to be the opposite of the teacher's teaching and some write papers that conformed to the teacher's teachings, while at the same time writing "real" papers with their own ideas. At the end of the term, after grades were announced, all students would turn in their real papers and the psychiatry student would write a paper about the experiment and submit it for publ
What about youtube then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't this sorta set the precedent that Google should be paying some kinda royalty to youtube usrs that generate a lot of traffic, if it's no longer considered legitimate to just "take" content and post it on the internet?
Re:What about youtube then? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
The Mummy (Score:5, Funny)
When reading this the scene from The Mummy where Alex is trying to buy a couple camels from the Bedouin herdsman.
Jonathan: Four! Four! I only want four, not the whole bloody herd!
Rick: Jonathan, just give the man his money.
Google Lawyers: Snippets! Snippets! I only want to expose searchable snippets, not the whole bloody book!
Google Founder: Just give the men their money.
Opt Out (Score:2)
I really like the idea of being able to access any book I want over the Internet. I could easily see something like that spark a new are of learning but I fear that it will cause publishing to adopt a model more like music publications. A small number of companies end up with a complete strangle hold over the market and churn out the same rubbish over and over again.
badsummary, most current books still preview only. (Score:2, Informative)
Unfortunately the submitter's had a bit too much KoolAid.
Go read the FAQ on the linked site. Anyone except those using "designated computers" in public libraries is still only going to be able to perform limited searching and previewing of in-print works. The change is that Google will now give them the "opportunity" to buy the book too.
There is a licensing deal available for educational institutions, lets hope its affordable.
Electronic searching, pring reading (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are certainly not the last of a dying breed in this respect - the vast majority of people prefer paper to an LCD screen. I know personally I read way too much stuff online, but I haven't yet been able to bring myself to get through more then a chapter of a book.
On the other hand, by all (most) accounts, e-paper is just as good as regular paper. If you find yourself going to a library rather then reading something off e-paper in 5-10 years, *then* you'll be the last of a dying breed. Personally I'm gu
Online super-library? (Score:2)
OK I didn't rtfa but did rtfs and there it seems that all books, even those in copyright, can be put online by Google for searching in full, and it is suggested maybe even for download.
The latter would be really cool: an unlimited worldwide library where the book you want to borrow is never out.
Add a decent and cheap ebook reader and I also see the market for real books disappear almost overnight.
Is this still "do no evil"? Authors should still get their dues!
Sometimes it's better to apologize... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes it's better to apologize than ask permission.
My bet is that if Google nicely asked the authors guild for permission for just what the settlement resulted in, before taking any steps, they would be outright denied. Only by first -doing- and only then settling the permission matters, not only they got the desired result, they got it months ahead of time.
Some comments (Score:3, Insightful)
1. It bugs me that Google had to settle in the first place. Google shouldn't need permission to scan books for archival purposes, provided those copies aren't distributed to the public. Furthermore, allowing the public to search these archives should be treated as fair use.
2. Insofar as the plaintiffs raise legitimate points concerning the use of scanned material, this settlement should not grant Google an imploed license to the works of those who don't explicitly opt-in, but the class action settlement is such that you have to opt out. This is bad. No third party should ever have the power to license my works to another party without my explicit say so. That's an exclusive right granted to me as an author.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is far from being a book seller as a primary business any longer and do you know how many books probably get shipped by Amazon that are never read? While this could potentially hurt their e-book business I doubt that many of their better e-book sellers are going to be found on Google any time soon.
Amazon won't even feel a bump in the road when they ride over this one.