Comments on: Google's digital-book future hangs in the balance

Google Book Search has the potential to unlock the musty archives of the world's libraries. But will it overcome antitrust obstacles and other opposition?

[istill316]

For my part, I'm rooting for the DOJ against Google.

[hutwarmer]

yeah, we wouldn't want all those books to be freely accessible to people. that would be CRAZY.

[niccynet]

good article, very informative

[liquidmetalband]

There's no doubt that Google has some very nice technology for scanning books, both hardware and software-wise.

So long as they only scan out-of-print books, I'm OK with it.

[gfsdfge]

Hmmmm...Think how easy it will be to re-write history when Google has all the books of the world digital. Slowly, printing will go out of style. Real books will only be collector?s items. This whole thing has implications that will extend into the next generation. I hope someone in Washington can see the bigger picture.

[AnthonyNYC]

Books will go the way of records and cd's with or without google, kindle reader like devices will eventually replace paper. It is the green thing to do, but future generations will benefit because it will take time for books to all be digital
.
Imagine, you write a book, and send it to google, no publisher needed, if it is good, it gets rated high, people like it, buy it, read it and you get famous as a great author. Nothing changes about great literature but using obsolete paper and ink and destroying the forests because of an outdated way of thinking will no longer be needed.
:)
Go google!!

[waikwong]

don't we want to search for all information on the internet at all time? people can still buy books if they want. if Google has a way of putting all books on the net, why not? and look what they have done for the internet community already: maps, searches, free software that works better than paid ones, etc.... I don't think it would change privacy more than now, as for pricing, it would only go cheaper, and allow more books to be read and written (look at Apples Apps Store). more voices can be heard, more books can be read. It is very common for people to have fear for new ways of doing things. I say it is time for a change.

[JDGDOIT]

As a searcher for information, the capability to search all recorded human expressions is fascinating and freeing to me. Since I have not currently published any of my own writing, such capability costs me nothing and offers me everything. Essentially, I have, at my fingertips, an exhaustive public library with lightning-fast selection functions to enable me to find quotes or read on subjects of interest.

If I were a published writer who depended on writing as my vocation, however, I would have a totally different outlook. If everything I write is immediately available to a worldwide audience at no cost, with no remuneration to me for my creative work at producing it, I would be greatly concerned and likely to NOT write any further works. I would be busy training and preparing to enter another line of work to feed my family. I may enjoy the knowledge that my writings were being enjoyed around the globe - even heralded and publicly recognized - but that enjoyment doesn't put bread on the table.

The Web environment has bred in us a particularly virulent spirit of entitlement, that everything should be provided to everybody for free - especially to ME. The corollary, yet nonsensical, thought is that the authors, performers, writers, producers, etc. will be able to continue in their pursuits, and to joyfully do so, without any remuneration for their efforts to provide ME with the finest in entertainment and information.

There needs to be a well-considered compromise that uses the dynamic power of our technology to provide information and entertainment for all at a reasonable cost, which enables information producers to make a living.

Good luck getting that kind of intelligent, balanced, well-thought-out decision from the Federal court system!

[GajaKannan]

Google will eventually prevail in book search. Whether they would make any money out of it is another question.

[DanMcGirt]

Google's aim of making out-of-print books more readily accessible is bold and praiseworthy. But as the author -- and copyright owner -- of several out-of-print books it should be my decision whether I want to participate and on what terms. What Google is attempting to do is say that because this is such a good and worthy project we the mighty and benevolent Google get to ignore your wishes, little author, and/or impose terms on you whether you like it or not. I'm not sure how that fits with "Dont' be evil" but I think that train left the station some time ago.

[gefitz]

"What I think the judge needs to think about is whether we think the Authors' Guild would on its own grant a similar license to competitors to Google. If answer is no, and there is good reason to think they would say no, this license will by its terms create monopoly power," Picker said. "There is a chance this is the only orphan-works license that will created. No one else like the Internet Archive would be in a position to compete with Google with respect to the orphan works."

So, because other companies didn't have the forethought to capitalize ten years ago, Google should be punished? Because it is "unlikely" other companies would be able compete?

Is the object to bring everyone down to the same crappy level, or to create incentives to innovate?

[hutwarmer]

Well, if you look at our current administration and the actions that they have taken ove the last 6 months, the answer to you questions is "the object is to bring doen everyone to the same crappy level"

[kecousins]

Personally, I'm hoping that Google either pairs with Plastic Logic, or develops a similar reader of its own. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

[davebancroft]

It sounds like any rights holder who suddenly wants to something different, has that right. In the meantime, we all get to read, and search, and even buy information that is otherwise hard to access. Google deserves 37% for enabling the whole thing if you go with them, in my opinion.
More interestingly, developments like the esspresso book machine ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/5208694/Printing-machine-will-make-rare-books-instantly-available.html ) makes the whole discussion a lot more interesting...

[InklingBooks]

Stephen, you neglected to bring up the most important aspect of this lawsuit, one we discussed in email. This settlement violates treaty obligations we have with some 160 countries. No mere district court, least of all one ruling on a settlement between private parties, can abrogate those obligations.

The Berne Convention requires a minimum term of copyright of life plus fifty years. A work can't be published, in whole or in part, during that period without the express permission of the copyright holder. Even more important, there is absolutely nothing in the Convention that requires that an author make himself available for a copyright to be effective. If he changes his name and hides out in a mountain-top cabin, what he wrote can't be published. Google is clearly in the wrong.

The Berne Convention also forbids any formal procedure to acquire a copyright, even one involving the government granting the copyright. Placed before any international panel, it would be obvious that if you can't be required to do something to get a copyright, then you can't be required to do something (in this opt-out of the Google settlement) to retain that copyright. Again, Google is wrong.

The real stickler comes with another provision of the Berne Convention: a country cannot treat the copyrights of foreigners any differently from how it treats those of its own citizens. This is the one aspect of Berne Convention Google is only too happy to honor.

Google is aware that this class action settlement pretends that an organization representing a handful of large American publishers and one representing a mere 8,000 American authors isn't representative of publishers and authors in the U.S, much less in the world. But that 'can't treat differently' clause means that if this Manhattan court grants Google the right to screw American authors, Google also acquires the right to screw everyone in the world who's written a book with only a few exceptions. Note how quiet Google has been about that.

In any debate it helps to put the results in concrete terms. If the Google settlement is approved, they can scan and place in their database almost any book. They don't even need to own a single copy.

With certain complicated exceptions and exclusions (i.e. graphics), they will be able to display up to one-fifth the content to anyone accessing their website from inside the U.S. This means Google will track every page that you and I access. That's the only way they can fulfill that one-fifth provision. Even Orwell's Big Brother wasn't that noisy. But notice that this ability to view only applies to those in the U.S. That's because, although this settlement applies to virtually all books in the world, it only applies to their U.S. copyright.

That's the nasty aspect of this settlement and one that has European authors, their governments, and the EU in Brussels up in arms. To put it in terms Europeans are using, European books can be taken by Google as easily as books by Americans, but only Americans get to view those stolen texts. In short, some Europeans get robbed but no Europeans gets to share in the robbers' spoils. European authors lose the share of the giant U.S. market they would have if Google wasn't displaying what they've written online for free. But European researchers don't get to use that same database as a research tool. Europeans are getting doubly screwed.

Google had hoped that this settlement would move so rapidly and stealthily that it'd be a done deal before those outside the U.S. found out. That's why they've been so careful not to bring up the international implications. But the four-month delay myself and six other authors won has given European authors enough time to get their governments active. Google had hoped that an after-the-fact reaction by Europe would lead European leaders to adopt a policy of 'you screwed our authors, we'll screw yours.' Instead, there's enough time for them to make known that this settlement violates those treaty obligations, something that could just kill it outright. And there is enough time to hint that, if the U.S. treats their book copyrights badly, Europe will get rather casual about enforcing copyrights held by our lucrative movie and music industries. *** for tat.

This settlement must be tossed out. Because it involves copyright held by authors around the world, the issues involved in digitizing works, particularly so-called orphan works, can't be settled by a complex and grossly unfair settlement between private parties. It can't even be settled by the U.S. Congress. It's going to require international agreements that are fair to all involved.

--Michael W. Perry

[Cyrn]

A very strong and logical case against the settlement.

I'm just wondering how many works are actually outside the Berne Convention.

Also to extrapolate the Convention, why stop at Europe? What about Africa... or even India's Brollywood writers. Who is to say what is the required settlement as each author have their own valuation of their own works.

Ideally, it could follow stock image frameworks where authors submit their works to google. But how (according to the convention) does a person whom have deceased in 1959 able to access the net and submit his/her works?

[chronos19]

This would be a strong argument only if the USA honors its treaties and obeys international law.

Unfortunately, as we've seen so often in the past ten years and more, we don't.

To our shame.

[scottthesculptor]

wow being able to read parts of books!

I guess authors really feel that they wrote too much and people will be satisfied with reading a part of their book.

So I guess we should shut down libraries?
I can read the whole book there for free.
Authors should revolt!

[Kimsh]

If Googles goal was to make out of print books available to the public, there are a number of not for profits they could have helped. Or they could have helped push the legislation for process to contact owners of orphaned works. Clearly the Googlemotivation is profit, so they are looking to tie up the rights to the worlds books in a way that make competition difficult to impossible.
Lets face it, "Do no evil" is a very low bar. It becomes increasingly clear that dirty monopolistic business tactics are not considered evil in the Google camp.

[hassan_bin_sober]

This will complicate book burning!

[spinoza2]

When you talk about copyright and protecting "poor" authors, consider this: "Ninety-nine percent of authors don?t make money on their book projects, 99 percent of publishers lose money and 1,500 books are published every day, reports Clint Greenleaf." So copyright really only protects a relative handful of books published each year, and for this all of us are denied access to the treasure-trove of human knowledge locked behind orphan and out-of-print books. American copyright is a travesty of capitalist justice, and has nothing to do with protecting an author's property. The defenders of such pseudo justice have little interest in furthering knowledge for humanity.

[gggg sssss]

Now if they could find a way to nulify the RIAA - wowee

[aintnorainbowdorothy]

Pseudo-justce put aside, is it possible that Google doesn't really want to make a truely full-fledged search for the authors of the 'orphaned' books. When all the legal implications, nationally and internationally, are taken into effect, what will the result be of the cause? Will it re-inflame the Muslim Mullah's against Salman Rushdie? After all, his original work caused a death sentence be placed against him by them, something causing him to go into hiding for a few years and still afraid for his life? That death sentence hasn't been repealed. And what would children do if they access, outside of the local librarhy, to read material deemed not politically correct, to allow them to read it? Would this inflame parents and put an end to that portion of a child's search on the 'net? It's possible to restrict access to internet information, websites and so forth with a little effort by a person. That's simply and easily put as limitation of free speech.

There a lot of arguments against Google being able to do this, nott least the fact that it would give them a total monopoly over the printed word, irrespective of what authors might want. or people who would be owed monies by Google. After all, how hard is it to fudge results of particular searches? Anyone remember the click-through fraud of a couple years ago, and does anyone know if it isn't still being done? And please don't argue statistics. As Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clemens, said 'There are lies, damed lies, and then there are statistics'. Google can pull up statistics of the company's own making.

No, I think Google should lose this one. National, International and other law is pretty cut and dried when it comes to copywrite. Should Google try to violate International treaties, any and all countries involved could and should come to the United States, file a lawsuit in Federal Court, State Courts if possible also, and tie the machinations of that company up for years. 'Do no evil' sounds good, but it's really hard to practice. Just ask doctors.

[Cyrn]

It a sad day when one places economic value over knowledge.

While I'm a supporter of copyrighting, personally I think it's getting overly exploited.

I wonder what would we be if all humanity works were copyrighted... from caveman to Socrates to Newton to...whomever that writes/creates anything.... heck, maybe even if alphabets and numbers were copyrighted... you'd pay for every character produced :D

[klassen1]

Over exploited is true. The Constitution grants copyright for only a "limited time". To believe that one can torture "life+75 years" out of that is utterly absurd. Copyright should last a fixed 20 years.

The other thing wrong with this settlement is it is really just the philosophical opposite of what the RIAA/MPAA have been arguing; that copyright is sacrosanct. In both cased, the individual is screwed---with the RIAA/MPAA you have to effectively prove you are not infringing (as opposed to them proving you did) and with Google you have to opt of their plan for each of your works. Expediency for the corporation appears to be the law of our land.

[mbergdale]

How are we supposed to have those good old fashioned book burnings now?