Questions Linger Over Google Book Rights Registry

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?"

Re:paper

[Anonymous Coward]

E-ink uses no power after a page load. You can turn the device completely off and still read.

Books will be digitized without Google? Maybe...

[langelgjm]

The aging baby boomers now flacking the settlement don't seem to understand that PDF scanning (how Google and everyone else digitizes books) isn't rocket science; it's cheap and easy. Books will be digitized without Google.

Actually, from what I've read, scanning books on any large scale is not cheap or easy. It's a fairly expensive undertaking, involving more specialized equipment than your desktop flatbed scanner, and involves moving lots of books around, in and out of large libraries. It's not an undertaking for the faint of heart. Microsoft tried, and decided to quit. [msdn.com] Furthermore, the value of having a single large repository is greater than a bunch of fractured repositories that probably won't have a good way of connecting with one another.

Re:Hummm.

[Chyeld]

"opt-out" meaning that unless you are careful, Google will start selling your books whether you want them to or not.

and by this you mean "I'd like to redefine what is actually happening to the most FUD worthy version possible."

Here is the reality of what they are doing:

In-copyright and in-print books
In-print books are books that publishers are still actively selling, the ones you see at most bookstores. This agreement expands the online marketplace for in-print books by letting authors and publishers turn on the "preview" and "purchase" models that make their titles more easily available through Book Search.

In-copyright but out-of-print books
Out-of-print books aren't actively being published or sold, so the only way to procure one is to track it down in a library or used bookstore. When this agreement is approved, every out-of-print book that we digitize will become available online for preview and purchase, unless its author or publisher chooses to "turn off" that title. We believe it will be a tremendous boon to the publishing industry to enable authors and publishers to earn money from volumes they might have thought were gone forever from the marketplace.

Out-of-copyright books
This agreement doesn't affect how we display out-of-copyright books; we will continue to allow Book Search users to read, download and print these titles, just as we do today.

The agreement will also create an independent, not-for-profit Book Rights Registry to represent authors, publishers and other rightsholders. In essence, the Registry will help locate rightsholders and ensure that they receive the money their works earn under this agreement. You can visit the settlement administration site, the Authors Guild or the AAP to learn more about this important initiative.

If your OUT OF PRINT books are important enough to you that you care whether or not that they are 'republished' then go to the 10 minute effort of registering and marking them as such. If they aren't that important, then don't whine.

Re:If you're big enough, YOU get to make the rules

[swillden]

In fact, maybe skip the publishers but ensure the authors get a cut -- since when is author royalties are an "opt in" thing?

As I understand it, that's exactly how it works. Authors get royalties for books read by subscribers of the "Google Reader" program. Google will also provide links to Amazon, etc., for those who want to easily buy printed copies of in-print books. Authors do have to opt in to collect the money, because Google isn't going to try to figure out where to send the checks.

Also, keep in mind that Google will not publish in-print books at all unless the author opts in. It's only out-of-print books where the system is opt-out. For those, authors have three choices -- do nothing, in which case their book is available and they get nothing, register, in which case their book is available and they get royalties, or opt out, in which case their book is unavailable and they get nothing.

Honestly, how many authors of out-of-print books do you think will opt out? The ONLY case where it would make sense to opt out is if the author is currently working with a publisher to put the book in print again. And if that's the case, then what's the big deal about going to Google and opting out? The publisher will do it for you -- unless, as I expect, it turns out that opting in is good for in-print books also.

Baen's Free Library experiment has shown that giving electronic copies away for free boosts sales. I think in the short term authors and publishers all over are going to discover the same thing, and eventually most in-print authors will opt in.

Re:Hummm.

[mrchaotica]

Um. Your first statement makes about as much sense as saying, "Yes, 1+1 = 2, thus 1+2= 2!"

Wow, you're right! That's because I accidentally wrote "opt-in" when I meant "opt-out." Oops! Corrected version:

No, that's exactly why [opt-out] is good -- if the copyright holder can't be bothered to identify himself, why should he still retain the privilege of controlling the book?