"Authors Guild" Skims Half of Google Book-Rights Settlement 271
Miracle Jones writes "A recent memo from the 'Author's Guild' to the writers and publishers that it supposedly represents shows that only $45 million of the $125 million dollar settlement with Google will be paid to writers, and that the most a writer can receive for a book is $300. Many people speculate that Google's monopoly over all of out-of-copyright works will result in a brutal monopoly that will hurt both writers and readers, and that the 'Author's Guild' had no right to make the deal in the first place. How will it all shake down? Should writers be paid at all for their work? Will Google be any good at the publishing racket?"
Summary and blogspam link laughably incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Full details (minus the blogspam and reactionary hyperbole) are available here [google.com].
Public Domain! (Score:5, Informative)
Why is the term "out-of-copyright" being used instead of "public domain"?
When a copyrighted work's copyright expires, it goes into the public domain, which means there are no restrictions upon the work at all.
IMarv
Re:Rhetoric (Score:5, Informative)
And yet it really does get to the heart of the matter. What IS copyright, anyway? It started off as a bargain between the people of our country and the writers and artists who entertain, enlighten, and educate us: Create these works, and we'll respect your control over them (as a way to earn a living from your work) for some number of years, but ultimately they belong and will revert to all of humanity.
As a society we've been more than generous over the last century. No creative artist living today will EVER have to lose control over his work by simply living too long. (Ill-advised contracts notwithstanding) That is a tremendous gift, and as a result we as a society have allowed vast amounts of our culture to remain under the control of individuals and corporations, for the first time in human history. Think about that. For thousands of years, if you heard a story that you liked, or a song you liked, you would have been perfectly free to retell (or rewrite!) it as you saw fit, or sing it to a friend or audience, altering as you alone saw fit. We as a society have largely given up these rights, and are giving them up for longer and longer. In exchange we think we're getting better creative works (even though almost any writer will freely admit that he's no Shakespeare, who didn't enjoy nearly the control that we give today's writers)
And so it seems to me that with society giving up more and more rights to authors, and authors doing their best to make their works less accessible and less useful to society, it's not such a bad thing to start re-asking fundamental questions like "Should writers be paid at all for their work?"
This isn't about "out of copyright" works (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about "out of copyright" works. It's about works that are still under copyright, but out of print. Google effectively just bought the rights to all out of print books.
Here's the Author's Guild description of the deal. [authorsguild.org] Authors can opt out, but only have until May 9 to do so.
These are the actual terms: [googlebooksettlement.com]
The settlement, if Court-approved, will authorize Google to scan in-copyright Books and Inserts in the United States, and maintain an electronic database of Books. For out-of-print Books and, if permitted by Rightsholders of in-print Books, Google will be able to sell access to individual Books and institutional subscriptions to the database, place advertisements on any page dedicated to a Book, and make other commercial uses of Books. At any time, Rightsholders can change instructions to Google regarding any of those uses. Through a Book Rights Registry ("Registry") established by the settlement, Google will pay Rightsholders 63% of all revenues from these uses.
Re:Half? (Score:1, Informative)
Right, only 36% was paid to writers. :)
Re:Summary and blogspam link laughably incorrect (Score:2, Informative)
Right, 8 bucks to buy and 1 buck to make. Then calculate the cost of marketing it (even just to the bookstores-- bookstores don't stock EVERY book that comes out), transporting it, salaries for the folks involved, enough profit to have the $1 left over to start again, and of course, a little just plain profit (if for nothing else than to survive lean periods).
Wherever you work, whether it's McDonalds or as a game programmer, it's understood that the purchase price is pretty far above the cost of the raw materials. Why do you choose to state it in a way that makes it look like publishers are greedy?
Sorry (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Summary and blogspam link laughably incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
In a no-copyright world, I could take your stuff, change it, put it in my binary-only product, and not give you back the changes I made. The GPL doesn't allow that.
Re:Summary and blogspam link laughably incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Summary and blogspam link laughably incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
I costs a little more per book than that.
My old man writes maths textbooks and then sells them to high schools as they closely match the curriculum.
He used to use a publisher (for the first book) but ditched them because after selling 35 000, he received about AU$6000. It wasn't worth the time invested in creating the material.
Then he used an Australian book binder and it would cost around AU$6 per book to produce, but given that he would sell them for AU$29.95 things were much better. Problem was that the book binder was not consistent with either timing on delivery or quality (still leagues ahead of the publisher). Mail outs to promote the material would only cost AU$0.60 per school.
He now out sources to Singapore. The books arrive on time and each copy is in identical condition. That costs AU$4.20 per book (soft-cover, colour).
He is now looking into buying a book-binder himself.