India Objects To Google Book Settlement 169
angry tapir writes "About 15 Indian authors and publishers, and two Indian organizations, have submitted their objections to Google's plan to scan and sell books online. Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head, according to Siddharth Arya, legal counsel for the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation, which licenses reproduction rights to books and other publications."
This is atrocious! (Score:2, Funny)
My people will not stand for this, there are over 1000 crore of us!
Seriously though, despite not RTFAing, I believe that googles bookscanning should be an opt in and not opt out process.
Thank you come again
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
fuck im retarded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system [wikipedia.org]
crore=10 million
I guess my indian citizenship, excessive body hair, and profound scent will be revoked.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly, there aren't that many.
He must have been counting their arms.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
actually a crore is 10 million
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore
Re: (Score:2)
Technically an Indian, but born and raised in Vancouver.
So, technically a Canadian, of Indian decent. Or does being born in Canada not convey citizenship?
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. At first glance, I read that as
Technically an Indian, but reborn and raised in Vancouver.
.
Care for a game of confuse-a-racist? ;))
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So how would opt in work? Would the author who is dead and has no relatives or recipients of the copyrights mail google and tell them the book is OK to scan?
Within the framework of the existing solution (which is bad in many ways, chief being that Google gets priority treatment), just set a reasonable period before "automatic opt-in" - say, 5 or 10 years.
Deciding (Score:3)
I wonder what it would be like to have to decide whether to sell your book or information for a slight profit or have your information available for many individuals who could use it for their own purposes.
I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people might object of a megacorp using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people might object of a megacorp using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.
It sucks when a doctor learns about new medical techniques and then uses them in his practice at an HMO.
It sucks when an Avis or Hertz leases cars built with the sweat and labor of plant workers.
It sucks when a scientist at Dow Chemical uses another scientist's research results as a foundation for his own research.
Re: (Score:3)
I too would prefer to share information for the good of humanity, but then I don't live of what I write*...
But Google should have gone for opt-in for living authors, or if the author can't be found, a statement saying they would like to get in touch with him/her so they can ask him/her to opt-in.
*)If you look around the internet you'll find most of what I written since school, available for the cost of having to endure it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But Google should have gone for opt-in for living authors, or if the author can't be found, a statement saying they would like to get in touch with him/her so they can ask him/her to opt-in.
Which would have the effect of making no significant change to the current situation, and the current situation must change for their to be any significant progress.
Make no mistake about it - the problem of orphaned works is huge and intractable under anything like, "opt in." For example, posting a statement saying they would like to get in touch with the copyright holder of an out-of-print work (the author doesn't mean squat under current law, only the copyright holder) will result in nearly zero response
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've often thought that keeping something in print should be a requirement for copyright.
The extreme case would be letting it go out of print ends your copyright and it becomes public domain. Less extreme would be allowing something to go out of print extends fair use to making complete copies. After all, if it's not possible to buy your work then you really can't claim a loss if someone makes a copy.
This seems a bit like requiring people to defend trademarks in order to keep them.
Re:Deciding (Score:4, Insightful)
Make no mistake about it - the problem of orphaned works is huge and intractable
It's huge, but not intractable. The cause is the insanely long terms of copyrights. If copyrights lasted a maximum of twenty or thirty years (originally it was only 14 years), you would have no orphaned works. Change copyright law so that lengths are reasonable instead of insane and the problem is solved.
Re: (Score:2)
A shorter copyright duration would lead to them no longer being orphaned works. They would become public domain works. This would indeed help with orphaned works.
That's not sufficient - because of automatic copyright assignment, anything that gets created gets copyrighted and in the vast majority of cases there is no official record of the date of creation. If you don't know when the copyright term started, determining that the term has expired is very problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no, if you have a fixed term copyright then you don't need to know exactly when it was published, only that it was published before a certain date. Worst case if you have no information at all (and most likely do have some information on when the library you are borrowing the copy from obtained it) you can just hold it for the length of time the copyright would take to expire had it been released the day you scanned it.
Unfortunately with the current life plus system you'd have to hold a work for a c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
using their creations for profit without even giving them notice.
you'll get notice, google will send you the greater of 63% of Revenues Earned in Google Book Search [googlebooksettlement.com] or $60. At that point you can just take your money, and either let it keep coming, or opt out and send your book back into obscurity.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity and yet I know that their are those that are in it for the money alone.
Like Google, you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, so I assume you work your day job for free then? After all why aren't you profiting your services to the good of humanity but actually selling them to someone? What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?
Re: (Score:2)
What about all the people who could use them but can't afford them?
Most day jobs are of the type where you're sold out - if you make 800 products, 800 people will buy at $50 and 800 people will buy at $0. It's just that their $40000 is going to you, so there's no net harm done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's kind of a non-sequitur. The GGP clearly implied that if he were to write a book, he would share it for free.
As for the GGP: Some people write books for a living, and that's a perfectly acceptable career choice. Sure, if I come up with a very plausible epistemological account, I would want to share that information with as many people as I can. But I'd also like to be able to SURVIVE.
Let's say that I somehow invalidated the scientific method as it currently stands and replace it with some other method
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is, I think, the most significant argument against copyright extensions. I have no problem with someone living off their own creative works. But when a corporation lives off the work of an individual long since dead, thats a sign of something gone askew.
If 95 years isn't too long, take it to its logical conclusion. Indefinite copyright extensions. Sound absurd? I bet I'll see it in my lifetime, bought and paid for with Disney's dollars.
Copyright was a grant to artists for the benefit of society. We get
Re: (Score:2)
But when a corporation lives off the work of an individual long since dead, that's a sign of something gone askew.
This would still be true without copyright. With copyright, and the Google book settlement, at least google can't keep 63% of the money, they either have to find the copyright holder, or give it to the pool of current copyright holders (and their family can stop this if wanted.) With the copyright expired, Google would be free to sell the work but keeps 100% of the profit. I mean sure anyone else who could find the original book and could scan it themselves can then add it to Project Gutenberg, but Googl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally would prefer to share information for the good of humanity
Not just for humanity's good, but for your own. Go to Cory Doctorow's web site and read Little Brother. It's a good novel, but outside the novel but inside the book is a very good explanation of WHY he puts his books online and free. If I've never heard of you there's no way in hell I'll buy one of your books, but if I check one out from the library (or read it on the internet) and like your work, I'm likely to buy a different one.
Nobod
Re: Not just for humanity's good, but for your own (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know the differences of their, there, they're, I made the mistake and caught it after posting... sometimes I do like the idea that we could modify our own comment to fix the nagging issues such as spelling, punctuation or a missing word... but the downside is just too great... rewriting posts not to correct minor errors but to modify the content and thus the meaning as well.
Perhaps a trade off would be if the comment has not yet been replied to then it could be open for modification within a ten minute wi
Opt out is a valid option (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to get called every evening several times by unscrupulous companies trying to part me from my money. They expanded from just calling my home to calling me at the office, then calling my family. What started as a polite brief conversation in which I rejected their offer and asked them to stop calling me became a vicious conversation with yelling on each end of the phone. Hanging up had no effect since they simply called me back. Somehow my phone number was marked as Active and I was harassed incessant
Re: (Score:2)
Chief Breaks Like The Wind
I think they're the other kind of Indian. You know, from India.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
10,000 dollar fines if he reports a violation of the national do not call list.
Communism! (Score:5, Insightful)
God forbid Google should try to catalog, preserve, and make available out-of-print specialty books that are never going to get another run on the presses. I'm a specialist in a discipline (classical philology = ancient Greek/Roman literary studies) that depends heavily on this type of book, and I can't tell you the number of times I've discovered an old (like ca. 1960 or earlier) but important volume in a bibliography that my library doesn't have. I would kill to just be able to dial those books up on Google, but of course I can't because of bloodsuckers like these guys.
Eventually rare but important books are just going to start disappearing, and by the time the problem gets big enough that the right people are aware of it we won't be able to do anything. Thanks a lot, publishers, for destroying untold amounts of information. I hope it was worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue must be even more prescient in your field. The pain of watching a book about the library of Alexandria fall into disrepair would be palpable.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note, The symbol for the Dems is a donkey; What was the Rep symbol again?
And before the bipartisan bitching starts, it was just a joke.
Re:Communism! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is exactly right, I think. If copyright were held to some reasonable time limit, most works would easily be preserved. Additional changes to copyright could also work to ensure that any reasonably available works are preserved. If, for example, third parties like Google were allowed to scan and store the books without distributing or otherwise making use of them (other than fair use, presumably) until the copyright term expires, then it would allow the archival and preservation of works. Of course, thi
Re: (Score:2)
The problem, as I see it, is that Google has a monopoly on this. They had to break the law to get this monopoly, and it took both slick lawyers and a pliant "adversary", but they got a court to give them a global right to copy "orphaned" works that are still within copyright.
Now it's true, someone else could try the same game. Break the law and see if their lawyers are slick enough and their "adversary" is pliant enough and the judge is .... I can't figure out HOW to categorize that judge. If it all work
Re: (Score:2)
What is your solution for all the orphaned works then? It is impossible for an author that cannot be contacted to opt in.
Re:Communism! (Score:5, Interesting)
The solution of course, is registration and renewal.
To get a copyright, an author must opt-in by registering with the various national copyright offices in the countries in which he seeks protection. If he fails to do this within a modest period of time (say, 1 year after the first publication of the work, anywhere in the world, where publication is taken very broadly, or 5 years after creation of the work if unpublished), the work falls into the public domain. For copyrighted works, the copyright term is very short (say, 1 year from registration), but can be extended for another term if the copyright holder renews the copyright before the current term expires; if he fails to do this, the work falls into the public domain. And the number of renewals is limited depending on the class of work (e.g. software might have a maximum copyright length of 5 years, while a movie might have a maximum length of 20 years), letting the work fall into the public domain when it can no longer be renewed and the last term expires.
The forms for registration and renewal would always require the applicant to provide up-to-date contact information. This would be further strengthened by strengthening and enlarging the notice formality, using unique IDs for works, similar to how patents are handled and patented goods are marked. Not only would third parties have a good idea who held the copyright at any given time, but they'd also have a good idea of which copyrights were involved to aid in finding the right records to begin with.
This is by no means difficult for authors. In the US, registration and renewal, by various means, were standard features of our copyright system for nearly two centuries, and we managed okay. The paperwork is roughly about as difficult as a change of address form filed with the Post Office, and in any case, authors encounter plenty of forms in their daily lives just like the rest of us, whether it's taxes, registering to vote, getting a driver's license, filling out an intake form at the doctor's office, etc. They're not children, and don't need to be coddled. There might be fees, but they should be kept to a minimum, merely to avoid having people abuse the system, rather than to raise revenue, or make the system self-supporting, or to tax authors. I'd be perfectly happy with a token $1 fee per registration or renewal.
Re: (Score:2)
We are at a new golden age for information where we have the ability to share and catalog all the knowledge this planet has ever produced. However there is a small group of people who still think it is in the best interest of the world to lock up this information. The Internet was developed to share information. It wasn't de
Re: (Score:2)
So.. everytime you commit changes to a VCS, you pay $1 to register that snippet of code?
Only if you want to try to copyright it (if too minor, it might not be copyrightable) and if it would certainly enter the public domain if not registered (cf. unpublished development inside a business, eventually resulting in a single finished work being published).
And presumably, only if you can't have multiple changes covered under a single registration as a group registration or as a single work.
Remember, the goal is
Re: (Score:2)
What about corporate crime or accidentally released code? Or open source? In order to maintain the GPL every revision must be copyrighted, otherwise the changes are in the public domain regardless of what the license says.
Re: (Score:2)
What about corporate crime or accidentally released code?
Frankly, I'd still want registrations, but if it is someone else's fault that the work was made public, they'd need to be liable for damages.
Or open source? In order to maintain the GPL every revision must be copyrighted, otherwise the changes are in the public domain regardless of what the license says.
OSS would not be exempted. If it is important to the developers that the software be open sourced and that the license on it (e.g. the GPL) be enforce
Re: (Score:2)
So your solution is to make contributing to open source not free?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it should be free to develop software and make it available to others.
But if a contributor wants to be able to exercise the full power of copyright law in order to have the work not copied, modified, or distributed, except as he wishes, then for that he may need to pay, just like anyone else who wants similar powers.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is this different from opt-out?
Because it is opt-in to copyright. If an author fails to opt-in, or if the copyright holder fails to continually renew their opt-in, the work enters the public domain.
True, if Google wanted to scan a copyrighted work, they'd still need to find an applicable exception to copyright, such as fair use, or get permission from the author. But this would massively reduce the number of works still under copyright, because most authors wouldn't care to copyright their works at
Re: (Score:2)
What is your solution for all the orphaned works then? It is impossible for an author that cannot be contacted to opt in.
If the owners of a copyright are impossible to locate, then you can actually just infringe like crazy and do what you want. It is not technically legal, but if there is no one around with the right to sue you then there will be no downside.
This does not mean that it is easy to determine if a work is orphaned. Just because someone does not respond to Google's opt-out call does not mean their work has been orphaned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://books.google.com/books?id=MB0PAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=jules+verne&as_brr=4&ei=J5NnS7CdPIXQMtD4pL0M&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false [google.com]
Public domain books are full view and they don't charge a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. I don't think copyright is in anything resembling a proper state, but swapping it out with Google(R) Copyright (Beta!) is not the answer, not at all.
Your tone suggests it's a bad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head
Good. Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.
Go you good thing! (Score:2)
That's exactly my thoughts on reading TFA. Especially this:
I was thinking how great it would be if that was how it worked. If copyright owners basically had to contact the users and distributers of works and say "Oi, that's mine, either throw us some money (a reasonable amount) or cease, desist and delete."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As long s the "a reasonable amount" is set by the Copyright Holder. They own the rights, and should be free to set the price.
No, they do not own the rights - at best they are leasing them from the Public.
Since it is the Public who Grants the copyright in the first place, then the Public should have a say in the pricing too.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just trying to stop them making a living.
A very few could - ones who had a sponsor, or independent wealth so they could write as a hobby.
I doubt you can name one such author, and I doubt even more that you've read any of their books.
The lucky few, as mentioned ab
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Google's proposed settlement of a US lawsuit turns copyright law on its head
Good. Copyright law has been quite ridiculous for some time now.
I see this potentially being about more than specific copyright law. There has been such a big fuss about the direction Google has taken with Google Books, and I've read a lot of opinions on Slashdot that point to this and rebuke Google for it. If I'm to interpret this by "Do no evil" then I am hard pressed to sympathise with authors and publishers at all. With ebooks moving more into the mainstream, thanks largely to ebook readers like the Kindle and the ebook stores that pair with such devices, I see more
Re: (Score:2)
You fundamentally misunderstand Google's proposed settlement. This isn't about a change in the industry, it's about Google (and Google alone) cornering the market.
Google's proposed settlement gives Google alone the right to universal
Re: (Score:2)
You fundamentally misunderstand Google's proposed settlement.
This is essentially true, although technically, it's that I don't find the specifics of the settlement particularly interesting until Google's plan comes together and we see what they actually do with it.
This isn't about a change in the industry, it's about Google (and Google alone) cornering the market.
Sounds like a change in the industry to me, but I get what you mean. More to the point, just what market is Google cornering? Out-of-print books? Or is it more about ebook versions of books that weren't digital until Google scanned them? It seems like what the specifics, it's a market that no one was paying
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but this is a particle with a spin of 1/2. You have to turn it around 360 degrees, until it’s on its real opposite side (head). ;)
180 degrees is still bad. Just in another direction.
Wait - Sell? (Score:2)
Are they planning selling print-on-demand copies? For cost, or to turn a profit?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The settlement in question which these Indian authors are so upset about was just about the right to publish excerpts though right?
Re: (Score:2)
Google has a deal with some books-on-demand kiosk company to sell these out-of-print books via that means. I hear the binding is super-shitty, but if you could optionally get it printed on good paper and with some kind of durable toner (or whatever) you could have books rebound if you wanted to keep them. It might even lead to a cottage industry in bookbinding :)
For whom the inconvenient bell tolls.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having read the article, it seems like a rather large whinge.
If you're receiving a royalty cheque for your books, then have whomever is paying you your royalty cheque opt-opt of google if you so desire.
Is it such a technical hurdle for a publishing company to indicate to Google that Books X, Y & Z are opt-out, or even that ALL books that they publish are to be opt-out?
Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?
Whom deserves the greater inconvenience? Those who actively publish books or those who can't find the authors (dead, recluse, one name among millions) to get permission. Which one of those two is doing it for a living and has the ability to do so? Imho we can't trust publishers to provide information/contacts for authors and books so permission can be sought, when it's a task that won't earn them money. It seems that slating it as an opt-out forces those who want to maintain their control must actively do so, and no amount of spin is going to make the complaint about having to do more as part of publishing seem anything more than a whinge.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, if the author is receiving royalty payments then Google isn't going to scan their works and sell them. The opt-out provision only applies to works where the copyright holder is either unknown or not responding to contact attempts (the class of works referred to as "orphan works"). If as an author you've got works out there that Google won't be able to associate with you, it's your responsibility to tell Google about it. To me, that seems reasonable. The alternative is seeing a large body of work disap
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The opt-out provision only applies to works where the copyright holder is either unknown or not responding to contact attempts (the class of works referred to as "orphan works").
Bullshit. What you are suggesting is that for each of the MILLIONS of published works that Google is going to make an effort to contact the rights holders?
Are you serious? Its laughable to even entertain the thought. This is how its going to work: Google will submit a list to BIG PUBLISHERS and if THEY own the rights to or have a contract with the rights holder of any of the material then they will submit an opt-out list right back. Thats it. Thats the extent of the "attempt to contact" that will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, not according to the settlement terms. If the author sues, the burden will be on Google to show they took reasonable steps (at the very least contacting the publisher to get contact info and/or running a Google search for the author's name). If Google can't, they're liable for standard copyright-infringement damages. And even if Google shows they took reasonable steps and the author wasn't contactable, Google's still on the hook for royalties for every copy they make. At absolute worst the author walk
Re: (Score:2)
You suggest that an author file suit against Google.. and then.. "the burden will be on google to show.."
I got news for you buddy. Thats not how it works in America. The burden will be on the plaintiff (the author) to show that defendant (Google) did not take "reasonable steps."
Your conclusion that "at absolute worst" the author gets royalties is wrong. At absolute worst the author goes bankrupt fighting against a behemoth corporation and ends up with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because if you're not receiving money for your books - why would you have any objections to it being available to all ?
Because some people are selfish, stingy assholes. The same kind of people who lock others out of their wifi connection because "I paid for it, why should my neighbor get it for free? I don't care if it doesn't cost me anything to share it, I'm a selfish bastard."
Re: (Score:2)
"I paid for it, why should my neighbor get it for free? I don't care if it doesn't cost me anything to share it, I'm a selfish bastard."
Please tell me where your ISP provides you with infinite bandwidth and no usage caps, and I will bring a truck full of hard drives.
I think it does cost you something: a slice of your bandwidth pie. Your ISP may also hold you accountable for the kiddie porn your neighbour downloads.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it does cost you something: a slice of your bandwidth pie.
If I'm trying to DL the new distro and it seems slow I can shut the wifi off. As far as the "kiddie porn" that's a red herring. There just aren't that many pederasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Economics 101: competition requires a market with several players. A market with a single player is a monopoly.
The (class action) settlement gives Google alone the super-right of ignoring copyright. Fix the settlement, so that every company and every person gets the super-right to ignore copyright, and maybe we can talk ab
the reason it's opt-out (Score:5, Informative)
The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print. The authors are probably dead, and the publishers aren't interested in communicating with anyone about the works, because the amount of money they could get out of it wouldn't be worth their time. Therefore it can't be opt-in. The copyright regime is having the effect of making these books permanently unavailable, which isn't doing the authors (or their heirs or their readers) any good. If copyright terms were more reasonable, it wouldn't be such a big problem, but congress has basically decided to keep extending copyrights so that they never expire. That's what's created this huge class of orphaned works. The only way to deal with the problem is to make it opt-out.
Some authors are complaining, after the class-action suit is all over, that it's unfair and they weren't consulted. Well, sorry, but that's how a class-action suit works. They have to make a certain legal effort to notify you as a member of the class, but if you don't see a notification, you're out of luck, and the settlement applies to you just like everyone else. Boo hoo. Go ahead and opt out.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and opt out.
I really don't see the problem. If a Copyright holder doesn't want to be involved, they can opt out.
Re:the reason it's opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked, and it's being implemented by private enterprise and a trade association and their associated lawyers without any actual involvement of an elected legislature or executive.
I'm all for the creation of a right to scan, archive, and make available orphaned works. I'm happy for Google to do the work and take whatever profit they can obtain from the market for orphaned works. (In fact, I think that if a copyright holder fails to make their copyrighted works available on Reasonable And Non Discriminatory terms, their copyright protection on those works should automatically cease. It should *never* be possible to use copyright to keep culture and knowledge away from public access). However, I think that right should be created by proper modification to copyright law, not by using class-action law to make an end run around the legislative system to create a monopoly on Google's behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
> The real problem is that this is a huge change to how copyright law has previously worked,
No not really. All it's really doing is setting the clock back about 30 years to before when Disney got ahold of American copyright law and bent it all out of shape. This "Google Tragedy" is actually setting things right to a considerable degree.
"Opt out" is also very much comparable to the real property equivalent. So all of you people whining about how "intellectual property" should be treated like the real thin
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. *I* don't have the right to scan old (orphaned) books and make them available on *my* website. *You* don't have that right. Nobody does, except for Google. That's not setting the clock back, that's giving Google an unfair monopoly, and we all
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I suspect you're correct in your assessment of US Congress (and most other ruling bodies).
Still, it would have been nice if Google's settlement with the Author's Guild permitted bodies other than Google to get the same deal for creation of digital libraries of orphaned works.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.
This is not a good enough reason.
...but you can bet your ass that Google will not hold an exclusive here for very long, because that would be terribly wrong on so many levels (can you say Monopoly?) Microsoft will get in the game, then others. Before you know it, the author will have to opt out on a dozen different services.. then two
Here is the deal. Right now its just Google trying to get this deal set up, so right now you would have to contact only one entity (Google) and that doesnt seem so bad...
Re: (Score:2)
>> The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works
>> out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally
>> because they're out of print.
>
> This is not a good enough reason.
Wrong. That's just about the most valid reason possible.
Someone needs to preserve this stuff and it's obvious that the "owners" have no interest.
Nevermind "opt out". They should simply lose their rights altogether.
It should be "use it or lose it", "publish or die".
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of an orphaned work is not "the owners have no interest in preservation of the work" like you claim. The definition of an orphaned work in this case is "google couldn't contact them"
Re: (Score:2)
And that's pretty messed up. A sues B, and they come to a settlement which extinguishes C's rights without his input.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it's opt-out is that there's a huge number of orphaned works out there whose copyrights are still valid but that can't be bought legally because they're out of print.
It's a very good argument for significant copyright term reduction. It's not a good argument for a settlement which puts a for-profit corporation in a privileged position of being able to effectively violate copyright, and not being held responsible for it, in a way no-one else can.
I mean, why can't I have authors "opt out" of, say, me downloading their books? After all, I can just assume that all books are orphaned unless I get told otherwise, so surely it's better that way?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a side effect of the same process that lets our legal system grant you copyright over your work. Namely, it's our legal system, in our country, and we can do what we like with it.
If China wanted to remove all copyright from anyone who isn't a Chinese citizen, they would be legally allowed to do so, largely by virtue of the fact that they are beholden to no-one. Legally speaking, this is the same situation.
(You can make a moral argument about it, of course. That's different entirely.)
Re: (Score:2)
You could make the moral argument but it would be mistaken.
I know a lot of eyes will roll but this is exactly the sort of situation where one can see, if one will look, just how critically important good semantic hygiene and objective morality are important to society. If "copyright" were a basic human right then these objections would absolutely be valid, the moral argument solid, and the legal change would be ultimately ill advised and damaging to the species as a whole in the long run.
However since the f
Google has some trouble (Score:2, Interesting)
Objects in India? (Score:2)
since when do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what reports?
How about the third result in a google search for "indian book piracy" [hinduonnet.com]. And while we're at it, how about you learn to use the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
And while we're on the subject of Darwinianism , being cocky is hardly considered a positive trait.
It's better than being wrong.
Reading and understanding articles would be helpful though, the irony in your sig notwithstanding.
There's no irony when I'm right. Of course, sometimes I'm wrong. But I still understand what people have written; on this site, usually better than they do. I used to read the dictionary for fun as a child, and that tendency has served me well here in detecting what people have actually said. Sure, I know what they think they said, but they need to be told when they don't. Otherwise, they will never improve; a lack of negative feedback is as good as a medal, on Slashdot.