Report: Google considering book settlement tweaks
Google is in talks with the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs in its book search settlement over possible modifications to the deal that could assuage the concerns of the Justice Department, according to a report.
Bloomberg reported late Wednesday that Google, a group of plaintiffs that sued it in 2005, and the Justice Department are in talks over the settlement, which gives Google the legal standing to digitize out-of-print books that are still protected by copyright law. Google was sued by numerous groups including the Authors Guild and several publishers after it began scanning that type of book, and came away with the right to present those books in Google Book Search following an October 2008 settlement.
But that settlement has provoked strident dissent from several authors, libraries, and privacy advocates concerned about Google's unique license to those out-of-print books. Google has promised to act responsibility, and notes that any other company can negotiate scanning deals with the Books Rights Registry set up as part of the settlement, but the deal as structured is apparently not enough to satisfy the Justice Department, according to the report, which doesn't specify which provisions of the agreement are subject to change.
A Google representative declined to comment on any possible negotiations with the plaintiffs and the Justice Department but said of the settlement "if approved by the court, this settlement stands to unlock access to millions of books in the U.S. while giving authors and publishers new ways to distribute their work."
One possibility is that the Justice Department is concerned about the Books Rights Registry, which under the settlement has the power to negotiate deals with other companies, distribute payments to books rights holders, and represent the interest of authors and publishers. The registry has been criticized as a "cartel" by Google's detractors, who believe that although it is a nonprofit run separately from Google it will essentially function as a gatekeeper for other companies that wish to scan and distribute books.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt expressed frustration with the critics of the settlement earlier today in an interview with Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan, complaining that those criticizing the settlement aren't putting forward their own solutions to create what all parties to the settlement agree would be a tremendous asset: a comprehensive digital library.
"I'm open to a better solution," Schmidt told Search Engine Land. "You will recall, we had our solution, and we were sued over it. And we then had a-god-knows-how-many years of negotiations with 27 parties, and we've actually produced a deal," he said.
Google was ordered Wednesday by Judge Denny Chin, who is overseeing the settlement, to respond by October 2 to the wave of comments he has received regarding the settlement. Supporters and objectors had until last week to file comments with the judge, who will consider them before holding a final hearing on October 7 to decide whether to approve the settlement.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
Google is a fundamentally flawed company. They make their billions by using snippets of the intellectual property of those as bait for ads. Without those snippets, Google would be nearly worthless as a company, yet they pay owners of the intellectual property nothing. They say they are entitled by "fair use" but I'd like to see a Supreme Court verdict on that. Otherwise, we can only believe that Brin and Page are the greatest thieves of all time.
The Google book deal is no different. Copyright means "the right to copy." Google does not have that. They can copy books only if they have the written permission of the copyright owner. But doing that would cut into their huge profits. Rather than play by the rules, the Google gangsters have set up a "cartel" (as it has become known) to violate the law by making a digital copy first and asking questions later. They expect copyright holders to "opt out" and that takes unprecedented gall on their part to even suggest that. Getting permission in advance is Google's responsibility, and if they can't get it, then they cannot pirate a copy.
Nothing would please me more than seeing Brin, Page and Schmidt doing hard time in a Federal Prison for their actions. They are not innovators seeking the public good, they are Robber Barons.
What you say is false. The Books Rights Registry is just a puppet set up by Google. That is why Google thinks they have the right to be the arbiter of all these matters, when actually they have no rights at all. They just want to gobble up the intellectual property rights of others and the Books Rights Registry is just smoke and mirrors.
If you knew anything about publishing or copyright, you would know how wrong you are. Authors normally own their own copyright. You can see who owns the intellectual property in the front of every book right after the copyright symbol, unless it belongs to an estate or has been assigned since the last printing. You notice publishers don't own the copyright to books in almost all cases. Publishers have no right or power to negotiate copyright with anyone.
Face it, Google has no standing in this matter. They are just going to steal as much intellectual property as they can unless the Justice Department puts Google down like the dog it is.
btw, i honestly only have one qualm with what google is doing, they put a deadline on the date for which authors can withdraw their works from google books. i am glad that authors have to OPT OUT instead of OPT IN because there would be MANY MANY books which would be lost forever without such a preservative approach.
"Google is into rip and rape and they are not to be trusted. Anyone who knows anything about Google knows their own interests come first, and everyone else can go screw themselves.'
and they have shown this when?
look, they are negotiating in good faith. as eric schmidt said, "I'm open to a better solution,". so lets see someone or some group present a better solution. oh wait, that is right, amazon, ms, and yahoo dont have a better solution. in fact, didnt ms shut down their book scanning project? this is all silly.
The Authors Guild is in bed with Google, and that is why so many are outraged by their inside deal with Google, using the Books Rights Registry as a smokescreen. That is why the DOJ is involved; it is a crooked deal. Even if the Authors Guild had the authority to negotiate copyrights (they don't!), it would apply to their own members, not to all authors as it is now.
As it is Google is trying to get control of intellectual property rights they don't own on the pretext that a book is out of print. That's like Google saying they are going to steal your car just because you are not driving it. They are telling us it's okay to steal your car because they are going to be using it to drive underprivileged child to school.
Google's position is stupid and nonsensical. They are out to enrich themselves at the expense of others, and that's the bottom line. If they want to copy copyrighted material, let them invest the capital in seeking the written permission of copyright holders,. They want to omit that step and make and distribute a pirated copy. The fact that it may be hard to get permission has nothing to do with it. This "opt out" idea is idiotic. It is like them saying, "Oh, you didn't want us to steal your car? You should have told us that in advance."
@hutwarmer
Google's rip and rape attitude is shown in the fact they use snippets of the intellectual property of others as lures to ads from which they profit hugely. The creators of the intellectual property get nothing. They claim "Fair Use" but do not meet any of the requirements of Fair Use as defined by the Copyright Act. Google is perpetrating a massive heist in broad daylight.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt is creating a problem that doesn't exist. He thinks a problem exists because Google is making a massive grab to control publishing rights they don't own.
The solution is very simple--Google needs to go out and get prior written from copyright holders before they copy a copyrighted book. If they cannot get permission, they have no right to make a copy. It's that simple.
Google advocates making a pirated copy and to profit from it until someone tells them to stop. That's wrong. That's why I say Brin, Page and Schmidt should probably do some hard time in Federal Prison for this sort of thing. Maybe a RICO violation in addition to other abuses?
Several authors? That sounds like something less than a dozen. How about thousands of authors (and their representative organizations) in the U.S., Germany, Japan, New Zealand and elsewhere? And how about the formal opposition of the Germany and French governments, with other countries and the EU now in the process of developing their objections, objections that are a bit more substantial than concer about "Google's unique license."
This news isn't hard to find. New York Law School has posted a quite impressive collection of documents being filed with the court at:
http://thepublicindex.org/documents/responses
If CNET can't get a story as big as this one right, I've begun to wonder is it can get anything right. Does anyone at CNET do research? It appears not. CNET's coverage of this dispute is little more than a rehash of Google's press releases.
- by rdupuy11 September 17, 2009 11:10 AM PDT
- well, the way I read dowells remarks is he is against search engines as well.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)Thats your right, but once you went into looney tunes land, I didn't care much about your other opinions.
I'm very much in favor of indexing the internet, and as a matter of fact, its a huge boon to the internet in general, and all the 'content creators' on the internet, to have search engines.
It would be an obsurdity of the most momentus proportions to think you could track down the owner of the billions of web pages and cut individual deals with them, in order to have some kind of search engine without 'fair use'.
So maybe your comparison is valid, but its not one that helps your argument.
This, the books here that would otherwise be lost, is just another case where the only solution is fair use.