Not Good
I had been peripherally aware of Google's plan to scan the books held in public and University libraries (public domain works) for some time, but for some reason the specifics of the case have eluded me until recently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books
I began hearing rumbles about this from various colleagues and friends a week or two ago. When I finally turned my attention to it, I learned Google was planning to scan all books, including those under copyright, and offer what they call "snippets" (excerpts) online. Future plans calls for Google to allow third-party vendors to utilize their database of scanned books to do whatever they wish, and, some say, to allow for a Print On Demand program that will allow readers to purchase a POD trade paperback edition of the book through Google.
Since when did Google become a book publisher?
The most important question, though, is who does Google think they are to hijack the personal property of millions of writers?
In the fall of 2005 the Author's Guild of America and the Association of American Publishers separately sued Google, citing "massive copyright infringement." (no shit!). Google countered that its project represented fair use (um...no, it isn't) and is the digital age equivalent of a card catalog at a library with every word in the publication indexed (not really...libraries only index things like book titles, subject, and the author; they don't index entire text of books). As of this writing, the full text of public domain works (not sure how much) is available online at Google (Project Gutenberg has been doing this kind of thing since the late 1990's), and has entered into agreements with select publishers to scan in-copyright books (this is only allowable if the publisher holds electronic rights) and include so-called snippets of the works online. Amazon has a similar program, which is akin to a buyer reading a sample at the store (something I have no problem with).
If I have no problem with Amazon offering brief excerpts of my work online for potential readers, why get upset at Google for doing the same? Simple. The Amazon program is entered into by mutual agreement between publisher and vendor. As a writer and copyright owner, I have granted a license to my publisher to display brief excerpts of my work for promotional purposes. That license limits the publisher what they can and cannot do with the excerpts. This includes the Amazon "Look Inside" program. In turn, publishers have entered agreements with Google to allow the internet giant to display those excerpts online at google.books.com (which they are entitled to do due to the contracts they enter into with the writers they've licensed the rights from). Again, I have no problem with that, since I've granted my publisher the license to do so.
However, if Google has their way, they will not be entering into a license with me to display excerpts of my work. Google has bypassed this by walking into the party and doing whatever the hell it wants to. Publishers and many writers maintain that Google has no right to copy the full text of books under copyright and save them, in large amounts, to their database. According to the U.S Copyright Act, this constitutes Copyright Infringement.
Other lawsuits have followed and are still pending. But the one I cite above has been settled in late 2008.
And the settlement is a steaming crock of shit.
Google has agreed to a $125 million settlement to be paid to the rightsholders of books they had scanned, to cover the plaintiff's court costs and to create an entity called the Book Rights Registry. The settlement has to be approved by the court, which will occur sometime in October of 2009. As part of the settlement, Google has created a website that allows authors and other rights holders (like estates or heirs) to submit a claim by January 5, 2010. In return, they receive a minimum of $60 per scanned book and $15 per "insert" (short stories in anthologies, forewords, afterwords, introductions, etc). In return, Google can index and display snippets of the books, as well as display ads on the pages and make available for sale digital versions of each book. Authors and other copyright holders will receive up to 63 percent of all advertising and e-commerce revenues associated with their works.
For more of an unbiased view of what's going on, read the Wikipedia entry on the case.
For a pretty good breakdown on how copyrights work, check out this.
For a really insightful analysis of the Google Book Scan project, check out this.
Among other things, the lawsuit allows copyright holders to control how Google displays their work (the U.S Copyright Act already allows copyright holders to do this; Google is pissing all over it, attempting to rewrite it for their own benefit). According to the terms of the agreement, writers and copyright holders can allow Google to display small or large excerpts or hide the work entirely from public view. They can also control whether they allow Google to sell electronic or Print on Demand editions and they can set the retail price. Depending on the nature of what rights the rightsholder controls, in some cases the rightsholder can get up to 63% of the monies derived from ad revenue and copies sold.
For those whose works have fallen out of print, it can be found money. A lot of writers hold this opinion.
My opinion? The people at Google who came up with this horseshit need to be battered, deep-fried, and fed to cannibals.
To ordinary citizens who still don't see what the fuss is about and have no idea how intellectual property issues work, the most simple analogy I can offer you is this: let's say you make curtains. You have rows of curtains hanging in your storeroom. The curtains have unique designs and they all bear your brand name. People buy them from you, and they also come in to browse at their leisure and pick the design they want. You also, at times, make custom curtains for clients who special order them. You control the price, and you have also entered into separate agreements with other stores to sell your curtains.
Suddenly, Google comes in and copies the exact pattern and style of your curtains, all the way down to your brand name and logo and they display them in their store and allow people to buy your curtains from them. They also sell them to other vendors for resale. They have hijacked your curtains. They are keeping all the money they make from your brand name curtains. But because of a class action lawsuit by the Curtain Makers Guild, Google will now split a portion of the money they bring in from the sale of your curtains.
If your overhead was ten percent of the retail price, Google has just cut into your profit margin.
Not only that, they now control certain rights you are no longer privy to. True, you can hide your curtains from public consumption under the terms of the settlement...but your work is forever damaged economically. If another company comes along that you wish to conduct business with, Google has made it harder for you to reach a mutually agreeable business arrangement with the new vendor because, in essence, Google has already set the rules down in stone thanks to the courts. The new vendor knows this; they will want 40% off the retail price because they know that's what Google gets.
On April 28, 2009, the deadline for filing an opt-out of the class action lawsuit against Google was extended from May 5, 2009 to September 5, 2009. Two weeks ago, when I and many of my friends first heard about the extent of the lawsuit and Google's plans, we began scrambling to research every possible avenue. Luckily the deadline was extended (probably due to the very limited time window in the first place). Now writers and other copyright holders have until September 5 to decide if they want to opt in to the settlement (and receive the financial benefits I described above as it relates to the $60 per book and the revenue shares), or if they want to opt out entirely. If they opt out, they will not be class action participants, their books will not be scanned for future storage (and books that are scanned will be hidden from view). They will, however, be able to file a copyright infringement suit against Google in the future (opting in to the settlement bars copyright holders from suing Google for copyright infringement).
Most importantly, opting out of the settlement sends a clear message to Google - copyright holders, not Google, not the courts, decide how their works should be distributed, displayed, sold, etc. The control falls back to the copyright holder, who can do any goddamn thing they want with their intellectual property. They can give it away for free, they can charge a competitive market price, or, if they're successful, they can get as big a profit out of their work as they can. They can enter into any agreement they want, with publishers and other vendors, for however long they wish
Comments are welcome on this topic. I'd love to hear what you think about this important issue.
JFG
I had been peripherally aware of Google's plan to scan the books held in public and University libraries (public domain works) for some time, but for some reason the specifics of the case have eluded me until recently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books
I began hearing rumbles about this from various colleagues and friends a week or two ago. When I finally turned my attention to it, I learned Google was planning to scan all books, including those under copyright, and offer what they call "snippets" (excerpts) online. Future plans calls for Google to allow third-party vendors to utilize their database of scanned books to do whatever they wish, and, some say, to allow for a Print On Demand program that will allow readers to purchase a POD trade paperback edition of the book through Google.
Since when did Google become a book publisher?
The most important question, though, is who does Google think they are to hijack the personal property of millions of writers?
In the fall of 2005 the Author's Guild of America and the Association of American Publishers separately sued Google, citing "massive copyright infringement." (no shit!). Google countered that its project represented fair use (um...no, it isn't) and is the digital age equivalent of a card catalog at a library with every word in the publication indexed (not really...libraries only index things like book titles, subject, and the author; they don't index entire text of books). As of this writing, the full text of public domain works (not sure how much) is available online at Google (Project Gutenberg has been doing this kind of thing since the late 1990's), and has entered into agreements with select publishers to scan in-copyright books (this is only allowable if the publisher holds electronic rights) and include so-called snippets of the works online. Amazon has a similar program, which is akin to a buyer reading a sample at the store (something I have no problem with).
If I have no problem with Amazon offering brief excerpts of my work online for potential readers, why get upset at Google for doing the same? Simple. The Amazon program is entered into by mutual agreement between publisher and vendor. As a writer and copyright owner, I have granted a license to my publisher to display brief excerpts of my work for promotional purposes. That license limits the publisher what they can and cannot do with the excerpts. This includes the Amazon "Look Inside" program. In turn, publishers have entered agreements with Google to allow the internet giant to display those excerpts online at google.books.com (which they are entitled to do due to the contracts they enter into with the writers they've licensed the rights from). Again, I have no problem with that, since I've granted my publisher the license to do so.
However, if Google has their way, they will not be entering into a license with me to display excerpts of my work. Google has bypassed this by walking into the party and doing whatever the hell it wants to. Publishers and many writers maintain that Google has no right to copy the full text of books under copyright and save them, in large amounts, to their database. According to the U.S Copyright Act, this constitutes Copyright Infringement.
Other lawsuits have followed and are still pending. But the one I cite above has been settled in late 2008.
And the settlement is a steaming crock of shit.
Google has agreed to a $125 million settlement to be paid to the rightsholders of books they had scanned, to cover the plaintiff's court costs and to create an entity called the Book Rights Registry. The settlement has to be approved by the court, which will occur sometime in October of 2009. As part of the settlement, Google has created a website that allows authors and other rights holders (like estates or heirs) to submit a claim by January 5, 2010. In return, they receive a minimum of $60 per scanned book and $15 per "insert" (short stories in anthologies, forewords, afterwords, introductions, etc). In return, Google can index and display snippets of the books, as well as display ads on the pages and make available for sale digital versions of each book. Authors and other copyright holders will receive up to 63 percent of all advertising and e-commerce revenues associated with their works.
For more of an unbiased view of what's going on, read the Wikipedia entry on the case.
For a pretty good breakdown on how copyrights work, check out this.
For a really insightful analysis of the Google Book Scan project, check out this.
Among other things, the lawsuit allows copyright holders to control how Google displays their work (the U.S Copyright Act already allows copyright holders to do this; Google is pissing all over it, attempting to rewrite it for their own benefit). According to the terms of the agreement, writers and copyright holders can allow Google to display small or large excerpts or hide the work entirely from public view. They can also control whether they allow Google to sell electronic or Print on Demand editions and they can set the retail price. Depending on the nature of what rights the rightsholder controls, in some cases the rightsholder can get up to 63% of the monies derived from ad revenue and copies sold.
For those whose works have fallen out of print, it can be found money. A lot of writers hold this opinion.
My opinion? The people at Google who came up with this horseshit need to be battered, deep-fried, and fed to cannibals.
To ordinary citizens who still don't see what the fuss is about and have no idea how intellectual property issues work, the most simple analogy I can offer you is this: let's say you make curtains. You have rows of curtains hanging in your storeroom. The curtains have unique designs and they all bear your brand name. People buy them from you, and they also come in to browse at their leisure and pick the design they want. You also, at times, make custom curtains for clients who special order them. You control the price, and you have also entered into separate agreements with other stores to sell your curtains.
Suddenly, Google comes in and copies the exact pattern and style of your curtains, all the way down to your brand name and logo and they display them in their store and allow people to buy your curtains from them. They also sell them to other vendors for resale. They have hijacked your curtains. They are keeping all the money they make from your brand name curtains. But because of a class action lawsuit by the Curtain Makers Guild, Google will now split a portion of the money they bring in from the sale of your curtains.
If your overhead was ten percent of the retail price, Google has just cut into your profit margin.
Not only that, they now control certain rights you are no longer privy to. True, you can hide your curtains from public consumption under the terms of the settlement...but your work is forever damaged economically. If another company comes along that you wish to conduct business with, Google has made it harder for you to reach a mutually agreeable business arrangement with the new vendor because, in essence, Google has already set the rules down in stone thanks to the courts. The new vendor knows this; they will want 40% off the retail price because they know that's what Google gets.
On April 28, 2009, the deadline for filing an opt-out of the class action lawsuit against Google was extended from May 5, 2009 to September 5, 2009. Two weeks ago, when I and many of my friends first heard about the extent of the lawsuit and Google's plans, we began scrambling to research every possible avenue. Luckily the deadline was extended (probably due to the very limited time window in the first place). Now writers and other copyright holders have until September 5 to decide if they want to opt in to the settlement (and receive the financial benefits I described above as it relates to the $60 per book and the revenue shares), or if they want to opt out entirely. If they opt out, they will not be class action participants, their books will not be scanned for future storage (and books that are scanned will be hidden from view). They will, however, be able to file a copyright infringement suit against Google in the future (opting in to the settlement bars copyright holders from suing Google for copyright infringement).
Most importantly, opting out of the settlement sends a clear message to Google - copyright holders, not Google, not the courts, decide how their works should be distributed, displayed, sold, etc. The control falls back to the copyright holder, who can do any goddamn thing they want with their intellectual property. They can give it away for free, they can charge a competitive market price, or, if they're successful, they can get as big a profit out of their work as they can. They can enter into any agreement they want, with publishers and other vendors, for however long they wish
Comments are welcome on this topic. I'd love to hear what you think about this important issue.
JFG
posted by JFG at 5/07/2009
2 Comments:
I think you hit the issue dead on, man.
Google is out of their fuckin' minds. It really seems like they are thinking nothing of it to rape authors out of their hard earned cash.
How can they think that what they are doing is in any way legal or even ethical?
Don't get me wrong...I like using their search engine as much as the next guy, but if this is going to be their practice, I will have to use something else out of principle.
And if they continue to steal the hard work of others, I say we kill 'em and then google all over their face.
Google can bite me.
Post a Comment
<< Home