Authors' Guild Goes After University Book Digitization Projects 170
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Ars Technica:
"With the planned settlement between Google and book publishers still on indefinite hold, a legal battle by proxy has started. Google partnered with many libraries at US universities in order to gain access to the works it wants to digitize. Now, several groups that represent book authors have filed suit against those universities, attempting to block both digital lending and an orphaned works project. The suit is being brought by the Authors' Guild, its equivalents in Australia, Quebec, and the UK, and a large group of individual authors. Its target: some major US universities, including Michigan, the University of California system, and Cornell. These libraries partnered with Google to get their book digitization efforts off the ground and, in return, Google has provided them with digital copies of the works. These and many other universities have also become involved with the HathiTrust, an organization set up to help them archive and distribute digital works; the HathiTrust is also named as a defendant."
Scram (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts should rule first of all that the guilds have no standing with respect to works of authors they do not represent... which, despite their name, is a lot of them.
Heaven forbid (Score:5, Insightful)
... that people get to read these works!
As a writer I understand the tension between wanting to be read and wanting to be paid. Some want only the former, some the latter; I want both, kind of like eat to live and live to eat combined. Such is my right. But I find the resistence to digitization foolish, a fixation on money and a holdover from dead tree books plus a first use doctrine many publishers and authors never liked. It's obstructionist.
As a reader, full speed ahead. I am so tired of books missing at the library or out of print. Then there's the allure of getting a book within thirty seconds. Yes, I'll pay for the privilege, can we please hurry up with an eye to both principles (get read, get paid)? And books in the public domain? Rapture. (Topic for another day: The insane extension of copyright in the Mickey Mouse / Sonny Bono Act.....)
Re:Heaven forbid (Score:2, Insightful)
Such is my right.
Is it, though? Between this and the story about the EU copyright extension, it seems that both authors groups and content owners (and no, they aren't the same) are all supporting infinite copyright extensions with no provision for orphaned works. If your "right" to make money conflicts with society's interest in preserving this content for future generations, which wins out?
Shows importance of Project Gutenberg (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, this story shows the importance of keeping Project Gutenberg moving forward, slowly but steadily.
Re:Scram (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahem...
Authors in question are DEAD or unknown.
Re:Scram (Score:2, Insightful)
The courts should rule first of all that the guilds have no standing with respect to works of authors they do not represent... which, despite their name, is a lot of them.
The courts should first hit Google with the maximum penalty for copyright infringement, for each case of infringement they've committed. Because that's kind of what the whole case is about. If I can't photocopy a book and put it on my public website / private computer without permission of the copyright owner, then Google can't scan millions of books and put them into a university's public / semi-public library, nor can they index them on their public web site.
It's flagrant violation of copyright law, yet if you put a video of your birthday party on youtube, it's only a matter of time before the copyright bots block your video because it triggered on the performance of the copyrighted "Happy Birthday" song.
That is all wrong. The court can only hit Google with the maximum penalty for each case of copyright infringement for each person who goes to court and asks for it. In this case, it looks like some sort of industry group is suing. Too bad they can only recover for people they represent whose book has been copied. However, it may be worth it because they can sue if they can demonstrate one of their members had a book copied. They can then set a precedent for future cases by all authors.
Re:Heaven forbid (Score:5, Insightful)
If your "right" to make money conflicts with society's interest in preserving this content for future generations, which wins out?
Well, you compromise. That's why copyrights and patents do and should expire.
Perhaps you misrepresented your position, but why should we compromise between what a special interest wants and what is best for society. Shouldn't laws just be what is best for society?
Without copyright, an author doesn't have spit unless they can negotiate a really really good deal with the very first reader.
Now look, I've made my living primarily as a writer for many years. The idea that copyright is the only viable business model for a writer is just bunk; especially in the internet age. You can post works for free and make money on ads. You can set up a fund whereby you only issue the next episode/issue/chapter when donations reach a certain level. You can use writing to promote a profitable business lecturing.
I'm not opposed to reasonable copyright law and certainly benefit from copyright laws on the books, but I'm of the very strong opinion that our current laws do more harm than good to society; and that is a trend that is only getting worse. Our society is run by big businesses and in that light the laws being passed make perfect sense. If you think what is good for big business is implicitly good for society, well I'm not sure rational discourse is even possible. We need to stand up and be clear about this complex issue; otherwise the majority will never care and the special interests will destroy what rightfully belongs to our descendants. Many works have vanished and every day the last copy of something gets destroyed. It is intolerable to me, and should be to you and everyone else. Please, think deeply on this topic.
Re:AG == Righthaven? (Score:5, Insightful)
we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.
Well then trot out these authors, or the heirs of those who are dead AND have abandoned their works and lets us sit down and renegotiate. Google has long asked for any information to find these people or their heirs. They are a search company. They couldn't find them. Your level of indignation suggests you know where they are and how badly they have been treated.
Dead before the cut-off date, (i forget the exact date here, but its somewhere in the 20s IIRC) then there is no problem.
Living and already have given permission or withheld it, again no problem.
But this middle ground of unknown authors, who are quite probably dead with no heirs accounts for a tiny tiny number books, which Google will immediately remove if the authors should appear. Too date, not a one of them have.
copyright isn't a right (Score:4, Insightful)
the US constitution had it right: copyrights and patents exist for the purpose of promoting progress. the primary goal isn't to give people a living - particularly not to guarantee profits to some company. we need to rethink the whole legal infrastructure around the concept of IP...
Re:Scram (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is, the longer copyright terms get, the more works are lost for good.
Don't believe me? Think about how many books "under copyright" may be lost simply because nobody preserves a copy. Think about how many films are lost [wikipedia.org] merely because the original source, moldering under "copyright protection", went bad in the can down in the vaults of some MafiAA member and either is unreadable, or perished in a vault fire (early nitrate stock is NOTORIOUS for being susceptible to both).
We almost lost an amazing amount of black gospel music [baylor.edu] before a few concerned citizens stepped in; we STILL risk losing a large amount of it due to MafiAA meddling.
And that doesn't even discuss the loss of computer programs for formats and computers that won't expire copyright for decades, but are functionally already dead - the guy who built this [chrisfenton.com] is having a devil of a time finding software to test it with, merely because disk packs weren't maintained and SGI apparently wiped most of their archives. Or the various game consoles, or early home computers where most software was stored on highly volatile and quickly-degrading floppy disks...
Re:AG == Righthaven? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the borrower dies or disappears, the loaned item is repatriated by the loaner. The orphan books being digitized are works where the author is unfindable. There is nobody to negotiate with. Unless someone like google preserves the works, they will simply turn to dust and disappear forever. Effectively, the author has reneged on the copyright deal by vanishing without a trace and taking the works with him.
If google has wronged someone, let that someone or a rightful heir come forward and say so. Their silence tells us they either don't feel wronged or don't care (perhaps they're past caring due to a mild case of dead).
Consider, if the Author's Guild wins something on the behalf of one of these authors, do you REALLY think they will stick it in a safe until they can track the guy down? Or will they just compound the wrong by stealing the absentee author's rightful awards? Given that copyright has been lengthened several times now, it is quite likely that the authors of some of these orphaned works had every expectation that their books would be in the public domain by now.