Google Offers Scanned Books To Rival Stores 150
eldavojohn writes "Yesterday we covered Microsoft's jabs at the Google book deal, but today Reuters is reporting that the scanned books will be available to Google's rivals. Google said in a surprising statement, 'Google will host the digital (out-of-print) books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any Internet-connected device they choose.' They made this statement today at the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee that had been called to discuss criticism of a 2008 settlement between the Authors Guild and Google. Well, I would bet this has caught more than a few people by surprise. The Authors Guild offers a history and the fine print of the agreement."
That was EXACTLY my thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about non profits? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft's reply (Score:5, Insightful)
Google: Google will host the digital (out-of-print) books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any Internet-connected device they choose.
Oh, joy. So what they're saying is that they retain their questionably-obtained monopoly over publishing these titles, but instead of paying them for a copy of the book, I can instead choose to pay both them and a retailer surcharge for a DRM-protected copy of the book? Exciting!
It's awful nice of Google to open up new channels of income for themselves. Why, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be allowed to compete directly. Anyone who does must be evil.
Re:There goes Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Authors Guild represents 8,000 writers (I used to be one of them). There are millions of "orphan" works still covered by US and international copyright law. The Guild has no standing to negotiate for anyone except their members.
Google has made absolutely ZERO attempt to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the rightsholders of these "orphan" works. I'm one of them. I have been notified by Google about each of my in-print books (five in all), but NONE of my parents' books, even though they were published by HarperCollins, who used to send me royalty checks for those books and would no doubt be happy to tell Google how to reach me.
The fact that, in desperation, Google agrees to share the fruits of its theft does not make everything OK. They have no right to share what was never theirs in the first place. And the Authors Guild are a bunch of useless whores who stand to make a pot of money off this rotten deal.
Re:Microsoft's reply (Score:2, Insightful)
And before you decide to fire back, how many companies do you know of with the spare resources, manpower, or motivation to do this thing properly?
How Is This a Good Thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you guys and girl get it?
Google is circumventing copyright law and capturing works that are in the public domain. Going forward, they monetize a previously free work eternally.
If information wants to be free, then how *exactly* is that freeing books?
Re:Microsoft's reply (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? What is this bullshit? Perhaps you have a better suggestion on what we should do in order to bring these books back from the dead. Be fucking happy that Google is a pro-competitive company and stop being a damned douchebag.
The same suggestion as always: Lobby Congress to open rights to orphaned works to publishers, with residuals going into trust via the WGA, the US Copyright Office, or a new administrative organization. And I'd hesitate to call "allowing others to buy from us, then resell" pro-competition.
And before you decide to fire back, how many companies do you know of with the spare resources, manpower, or motivation to do this thing properly?
Lexis-Nexis comes instantly to mind. Penguin Books, Del Ray Publishing, Microsoft, Ballantine Books, the Gutenberg Project, Yahoo!, AOL, Borders Books and Music, and plenty of others could pull it off, albeit some at a smaller scale. There's probably thousands of shops that would love to publish orphaned specialty titles electronically. And I strongly suspect that, if the rights to publication were open, nonprofits by the dozens would appear instantly to publish some titles.
Re:There goes Google... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think Google is doing a favour to the general public.
They just need an easy way to opt out or find the parents of the orphan books.
Sure some authors will get mad... but having all books at humanity disposal is a BIG step forward for everyone
Re:There goes Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
I won't claim intimate detail with the status of the "orphan books", but if what I've read is accurate, these are generally books that are out-of-print and not actively managed by the publisher or author. In this case, I say Google is doing a service by bringing to light a wide body of literature that would otherwise either remain unused or even disappear. Insisting on strict enforcement of copyright law leaves everyone worse off: the authors and publishers are still not getting anything because they have abandoned the works, and those who might have actually been interested in the material remain without access to it.
Re:How Is This a Good Thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
To me, information freedom includes diffusivity. If no one actually sees the information, e.g. a pile of books sitting in a disused corner of a library, it is not "free". Google is allowing these books to be seen, through digitization and online availability, and asking to be reimbursed the labor cost.
Re:There goes Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way do you think Google is going to get rich off this deal? Under ideal circumstances, it might take 50 years to recompense the enormous cost of scanning every single book in the United States. Can you even imagine the amount of work that goes into that? There's a reason nobody else is involved in this so-called gold mine. And uh, sharing their entire library with all competitors? Money, meet toilet. Flush.
And yet you're telling me they're doing evil here because they haven't managed to personally track down the heir of two presumably dead writers? And this heir has apparently not even bothered to contact Google himself. Cry me a fucking river. How about you stop and realize how much Google is already doing to support one of the greatest knowledge-preserving enterprises the world has ever seen, and get off your couch and do your own miniscule part to direct the enterprise as it concerns you.
Re:There goes Google... (Score:1, Insightful)
Google has made absolutely ZERO attempt to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the rightsholders of these "orphan" works. I'm one of them. I have been notified by Google about each of my in-print books (five in all), but NONE of my parents' books, even though they were published by HarperCollins, who used to send me royalty checks for those books and would no doubt be happy to tell Google how to reach me.
So that puts you squarely into category three, "copyright trolls looking to pounce on innocent infringers".
Do you expect anyone in this community to have pity for you? You are denying humanity the benefits of your parents' (out-of-print!) intellectual legacy; then you whine about Google who make it available for humanity, just because you want to wring even more money out of your parents?
I can't think of any insult strong enough, really.
Re:There goes Google... (Score:1, Insightful)
Google has made absolutely ZERO attempt to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of the rightsholders of these "orphan" works. I'm one of them. I have been notified by Google about each of my in-print books (five in all), but NONE of my parents' books, even though they were published by HarperCollins, who used to send me royalty checks for those books and would no doubt be happy to tell Google how to reach me.
Why don't you tell Google how and why to reach you? The whole 'orphan works' problem here would be taken care of quite easily if the US reverted back to our traditional practice of making copyright opt-in for published works. If an author cares about controlling the work, perhaps because he wants those royalty checks, he can surely spare a few minutes periodically to apply for copyrights, renew the copyrights, and to keep his contact information up to date and on file with the Copyright Office. If he sells or exclusively licenses the rights, then part of that transaction would again involve updating the Copyright Office. So long as the author cares, he can keep his copyright for only a token investment of time and money -- much like we do for patents or trademarks. If the author doesn't care or stops caring, he'll likely fail to apply for a copyright or fail to renew it, allowing the work to enter the public domain sooner. And after all, if the author doesn't care about his copyrights, who are we to disagree with him?
This worked fine for about 200 years, and it was a mistake ever getting away from it. We need to get back to this right away, making all the necessary changes in the law (e.g. withdrawing from Berne) in order to do so.
Re:How Is This a Good Thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There goes Google... (Score:1, Insightful)
Bullshit. There is no way you would know if they made "ZERO attempts". That pure FLAIM bait.
Why would Google contact you about someone else's books? Are your parents deceased or something? Then that's where copyright should end. Quit crying about not getting paid for something someone else created.
So you are making an ASSumption that HarperCollins would freely give out your personal information to anyone that asks? Nice.
Re:Microsoft's reply (Score:1, Insightful)
How is it a Monopoly? It's not an exclusive agreement, anyone else can negotiate the same or different terms with publishers.
Re:There goes Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
I won't claim intimate detail with the status of the "orphan books", but if what I've read is accurate, these are generally books that are out-of-print and not actively managed by the publisher or author. In this case, I say Google is doing a service by bringing to light a wide body of literature that would otherwise either remain unused or even disappear. Insisting on strict enforcement of copyright law leaves everyone worse off: the authors and publishers are still not getting anything because they have abandoned the works, and those who might have actually been interested in the material remain without access to it.
But this is effectively going to be 'strict enforcement of copyright law' - only Google will have the rights to electronically reproduce these works, unless of course they generously licence them to third parties (for a fee, naturally).
A much, much better solution would be to change copyright law so that if no rights holder can be identified after reasonable efforts, a work is deemed to be out of copyright.
Re:There goes Google... (Score:1, Insightful)
If everyone had the rights to publish these orphan books then yes it would be a public service. Google are in effect gaining exclusive rights to all of these works which they can then "license" to others. This is not a public service, this is a money grab by google to exploit a free resource.
Re:There goes Google... (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright was established to *encourage* production of intellectual or creative works such that ultimately society as a whole benefits. The carrot to producers of such works was a limited ability to make money through sales of copies. Where does the original intent of copyright say that your son is entitled to make money off your creation? If your son simply inherits your works, where is his incentive to produce? Where is the benefit to society?
Unlike your rented house, which is a non-copyable physical asset occupying a defined space your book/parent's books are trivially copied and can be transferred and stored anywhere. Why would society want to keep limitations on dissemination of a work when the original creator of that work has passed away and no longer requires an incentive to produce?
Re:How Is This a Good Thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
How can one circumvent copyright law for books in the "public domain"? If they are in the public domain, they are free to anyone.
What you meant to say, was they are making previously unavailable books that are still under copyright available to everyone. They are even providing competitors with access to the works that Google spent a fortune to scan. Nothing prevents Amazon or Microsoft from scanning these books themselves and working out a similar agreement with the authors guild, but they don't want to invest the money since they are already so far behind.
In the end, everyone (including the authors) benefits because these books will once again be available to the public as they were intended.
Re:How Is This a Good Thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I am not surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I am not surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Part of copyright, yes.
But it's also ridiculously impractical to negociate with hundred of thousands of copyright holders when you're going into mass digitalization of out-of-print books. The traditional way pointlessly restrains access to knowledge, and makes it more expensive.
The laws should be changed so that anyone is free to make works that have been unavailable for a certain amount of time (e.g out-of-print for 1 or 2 years) available again (ideally for free, but if we allow profit making taking the task would be more encouraged).