Google To Remove "Inappropriate" Books From Digital Library

Miracle Jones writes "In an interview with Professor (and former Microsoft employee) James Grimmelmann at the New York Law School, who is both setting up an online clearinghouse to discuss the Google book settlement and drafting an amicus brief to inform the court about the antitrust factors surrounding "orphan books," he revealed that Google will be able to moderate the content of its book scans in the same way that they moderate their YouTube videos, leaving out works that Google deems "inappropriate" from the 7 million library books it has scanned. The Fiction Circus has called for a two-year long rights auction that will ensure that these "inappropriate" titles do not get left behind in the digital era, and that other people who are willing to host and display these books will be able to do so. There is only one week left for authors and publishers to "opt out" of the settlement class and retain their rights or raise objections, and Brewster Kahle's Internet Archive has been stopped from jumping on board Google's settlement as a party defendant and receiving the same legal protections that Google will get. A group of authors, including Philip K. Dick's estate, has tried to delay the settlement for four more months until they get their minds around the issue." In related news, Google is seeking a 60-day extension to the period in which it's attempting to contact authors to inform them of their right to opt-out of the terms of the settlement.

Re:Burn 'em!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Please consult the man page. [die.net]

Re:I wonder what that will be?

[maxume]

Indeed. For instance:

http://www.ovo127.com/blog/2009/03/trevor-blake-unspeakable-horrors.html [ovo127.com]

(I don't mean to single out Lovecraft, but the popularity of his (other) work makes him a good sample)

Re:If These People Had Been Around Back in the Day

[Attila Dimedici]

They'd have chipped the wang off the Statue of David. Let's see, who else do I know that had a policy of making "Inappropriate" works of art disappear? Oh yes... The Christians.

There fixed that for you.

You do know that the statue of David was commissioned to stand in a Cathedral? Right? You know, a place of CHRISTIAN worship.

Re:Who determines what is inappropriate?

[$1uck]

Google is a corporation, the shareholders (or their representatives) decide what they find inappropriate. They are free to digitize/offer or not said books. They are not a publically funded library.

Re:Google is a business, not the end-all

[Gat0r30y]

If Google went around banning those books from every library, bookstore, and online bookstore -- then it would be censorship.

Google will maintain rights to the books it deems inappropriate even though they are not hosting them.

Re:How can a third pary lawsuit change my rights?

[Chyeld]

How Class Action Lawsuits Work [web-access.net]

Specificly:

The court directs that notice be given to all parties having a similar claim for the duration of a particular time period. They are to be notified (generally by the defendents' attorneys) so that they may be informed and have input into the case. This is where all parties, including the person or persons who bring the claim, are treated equally. This means that all class members are supposed to have equal input, rights to any monies, remedies ordered by the court, and so forth.

There are often several notices mailed to class members over the course of the case. The first notice is to accomplish the above - plus the added purpose of giving a person the option to "opt-out" (not be a party in the case) and not be represented by the party who established this case and is issuing the notice.

If a party "opts out," they have no further standing in the case. They can forget the matter or bring an action on their own behalf.
Neither option gives them right to any damages won in the original case.

If a party does NOT "opt-out," they are generally deemed to be a party to the case, are bound by the settlement, and prohibited in taking any further action on the matter.

If you don't get notice and have no idea of what is going on ... too bad! The court normally is required to direct that the "best notice practical under the circumstances " be given (normally mail, sometimes publication). Again, if you don't receive or find the notice and the "opt-out" date passes ... again, too bad!

At this point, you're "in" and bound by the courts decision. The case proceeds, sometimes for years. If you never received notice, you'll more than likely never know about any monies or other remedies to which you may be entitled.

Re:Put another way...

[HiThere]

They should be REQUIRED to scan and host every book under they sun because they have been granted the status of a governmentally approved monopoly by the court decision that allows them to scan and host the books if they choose to.

Re:Reality Check

[HiThere]

Yes, it's censorship. If Google, and only Google, has the right to scan and host a book, then for Google not to do it is censorship.

If it weren't for the absurd decision of the court then I would agree that it wasn't censorship. As, however, the government has granted this monopoly to Google, then for Google to refuse to publish a work is censorship.

I, personally, think that this decision is absurd, illegal, and unfair to everyone except Google and the lawyers. And I'm dubious that the court had the legal right to make the decision that it did. The authors' guild doesn't represent all authors, and it may well not even represent most authors. (I'll grant it probably represents all the authors in the English speaking world who make most of their income from writing. I won't admit that it considers their interests very seriously...except, possibly, in contract negotiations with publishers. [I'm neither an author of anything longer than a short technical manual, nor closely enough connected with any authors to have discussed how the authors' guild goes about representing them. But I know that they didn't represent me, and I *did* write that now obsolete and out of print technical manual.])

Re:Censorship

[mea37]

I'm all for limiting the abuse of the word "censorship", but I think you're on the wrong track in this instance. Google is being given unique authority to make these texts available. That authority comes from the government; I think that blurs the lines a bit.

Re:Censorship

[rts008]

Exactly.
The hard-core zealots from both sides seem to be overlooking this important point.

Did not even need to RTFA to have a clue. [from the summary]:

...and Brewster Kahle's Internet Archive has been stopped from jumping on board Google's settlement as a party defendant and receiving the same legal protections that Google will get.

[my emphasis]

Re:How can a third pary lawsuit change my rights?

[pbhj]

Your rights under copyright law come entirely from the government and legal system: [...] so it can choose to arbitrarily take copyright rights away from other people (such as you). If you didn't want that to happen, you should have bribed some politicians.

I know it seems unfair, but that seems to be the way it works.

The US is a signatory to the Berne Convention so they should ensure that local rules are consistent with the requirements of Berne. So, in that sense they can't arbitrarily choose to take copyrights away from you without breaching international law. You'd have a case against the US Government I think. IANACL.