Microsoft Blasts Google Book Deal 165
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the shaking-the-corporate-fist dept.
from the shaking-the-corporate-fist dept.
eldavojohn writes "With authors, scholars, the DoJ and publishers ripping apart the Google book deal, it's Microsoft's turn. They're claiming it's frankly an illegal 'joint venture' and not a settlement. According to ZDNet, Microsoft's four complaints against the deal are: 1) Future infringements are covered by the settlement, affecting the exclusive rights of absent class members for the life of their copyrights. 2) The deal gives away to Google vast rights that were not contested in the underlying litigation. The lawsuits dealt with Google's displaying brief excerpts. Instead of compromising on that infringement, the parties instead agreed to give away the rights to display entire books. 3) The publishers who negotiated this deal each have undisclosed side deals with Google, which will likely give them better terms than the class will get. 4) The publishers plan to exclude their own works from the deal. You might recall over a year ago Microsoft's own scanning effort died."
Re:Haul down the competition (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, there is that, but on the other hand they are absolutely spot on, the article is the best summary I've seen of the problems with the Google book deal. I dislike Microsoft, and I use Google all the time, but this deal really is a bad one.
I'm confused (Score:3, Interesting)
How else would it be done? (Score:1, Interesting)
When copyright lasted a short time, you didn't need to keep archived records of who wrote what.
When derived works was limted by the technology and things like having the billboard in your movie because it was up in the street when you filmed there would not be cause for a claim for millions in licensing, requiring explicit consent worked.
It doesn't any more.
When something lasts for potentially 150 years, where copyrights and their transfer can happen off the radar, where something may enter the public consciousness without knowing the source and where lawyers will sit and wait while a work becomes expensive to change before pouncing on the "infringement", it HAS to be done this way:
You're allowed unless you're told not to.
For fucks sake, that's how the internet works!
A webpage without restrictions on it is open for copying.
But what should, in your opinion, be done?
No Google Books until every possible "owner" of each and every work has been asked?
Why?
It's the owner to police their work and its protection, not the public's.
Re:Haul down the competition (Score:1, Interesting)
Ha Ha... It's worse!
You needed to have already opted out last week.
You're in now sucker.
.
What amazes me is that this class action settlement (if accepted) would effectively write electronic copyright law (as there is none), and rewrite copyright law for a single entity (Google) with all (foreign and domestic) copyright holders. Since the US is such a large country, and Google so ubiquitous, other countries have also effectively lost the right to have their own electronic copyright laws. That's why Germany objects to this settlement among others.
.
I like the idea of an electronic book store, but not the idea that a single entity will receive a monopoly deal to the rights of third parties by buying off its counter-parties in a friendly class-action suit. Our IP system is broken, but this doesn't fix it, it just shows that class-action lawsuits are just as broken and arguably corrupt.
Ebsco? (Score:3, Interesting)