http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/14/trying-to-save-orpha.html

Lewis Hyde, Harry Lewis, and the Open Access Trust are filing to intervene in this settlement on behalf of the public domain to address precisely some of these issues.

Adam

Anytime a new technology comes along, some history, culture and art is not preserved.

In Music, for example:
Only about 1 in every 5 old lacquer 78s ever got released on vinyl. Only about 1 in every 4 vinyl records ever got released on CD. Less then 1 in 4 pieces of music available on CD is now available on the web, at ANY PRICE!

In 2000, the cable channel American Movie Classics estimated that half of all motion picture film shot before 1950 was already irretrievably lost!

IN BOOKS THE SITUATION IS EVEN WORSE. partly because the medium has been around longer, and partly because of the realities of how copyright laws are actually applied. IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE TO PRESERVE THE CONTENT OF THESE BOOKS IN SOME MANNER! It is also important to make sure they are accessible to those who need or want them!

The issue is only the assertion that this gives Google too much of an advantage for anyone to catch up. Since Amazon not Google is the current market leader, and since this applies only to books written in the US, I would say no.

Check out the European Library:
http://search.theeuropeanlibrary.org

Publishers look for the largest possible market. Only a small percentage of books are bestsellers, classics, or otherwise appeal to an inherently large market. If Google, as a large and powerful (if new) publisher is selling that book, then the sales of other potential publishers will necessarily be smaller. This does not appeal to them. They will look for books that Google is not already selling.

It’s not a legal defense, but it’s a clear motive for existing publishers to try to stop this sort of thing.

I’m not sure how to fix this. Can someone — e.g. a previously-unfound rightsholder or someone else with standing — sue to decertify the class? Or are the only ways to fix this legislation or revolution?

Google had no right to step in and undertake this project nor the sweeping legality it begat. It’s no universal library of literature, nor was it a flagship designed to be, just a massive directory of the web and its offerings. Being convenient doesn’t connote it as a proper forum. It is also not some sort of civic entity. It’s a corporation with interests only beholden to itself not the greatest interest of humanity, no matter what their credo happens to be right now.

As for Amazon.com, Bn.com and their ilk, I think these are a different kind of beast entirely. They are in the business of bringing published works to the reader, of course for a price, but that is it raison d’etre, and publishing houses *opt in* with “Search Inside the Book” contracts with the full consent of publishing houses and the contract they represent – which also may be rescinded should they need to be. Literature empowers humanity, but it is not the right of profit-minded firms to assume they’ve a right to literature as a commodity.

I wish the resolution has solely been to ‘opt in’ and yes, included those orphaned works (after exhaustive research that they were indeed orphaned). Sadly no. The whole endeavor is a shame really now, as inevitably no good was to be resolved as soon as lawyers walked into room representing busybodies with their noses in everyone business.

The fact that Google is first past the post does not make it an evil monopoly. It just makes it first, and now we have the opportunity to access a vast repository of content that was previously either unavailable or unclear in terms of copyright.

This will make it easier for competitive outfits to join the fray, increasing choice, and reducing prices. In the meantime, consumers can choose whether or not to buy at Google’s prices.

Pamela Samuelson also remarked in her post that it was abhorent (or equivalent) that Google could make money from something in which they had no had in creating. This is absurd: book sellers do this all the time. They didn’t make the book, and further, and unsold books are the economic responsibility of the publisher: the bookseller just sends ‘em back.

So you could actually argue that this makes the risk of selling books lower for the publisher, while increasing distribution, and opening more choice for consumers (some books free, some fee, some expensive, some not) even while competitive outfits gear up to make the field even more inclusive.

Last point: someone is always beholden to someone else. Libraries aren’t independent: they are government funded. And that is the only answer any of us need when asking why extensive scanning hasn’t happened before: tax payers won’t ante up. Google isn’t independent either: it’s answerable to its Board and shareholders.

Folks, there is always a compromise! In that light, I’m for more access and for the opening of a new market for books. And bring on the competition this new market will inevitably spawn.

I guess that’s what breaking the class is, but seriously, the A.G. is starting to act like they want to be (or are) the RIAA. They seem like a REALLY vocal minority.

Maybe there’s a way to dissolve the Authors’ Guild itself? I know, I know, probably not. Fucking troublemakers.

Once such a catalogue exists and is held by a truly independent body (the libraries in question have no commercial interests), they can sell a non-profit service to search engines to access the catalogue, and possibly offer access to the full text of out-of-copyright works. It’s likely that they’d run a service like this themselves, so it’s a logical step to provide access for commercial search engines.

As to where this stands legally, I expect they’d be a form of exemption for copyright libraries. Otherwise, they might be able to push for a change in the law to allow them to do it. It’s in the best interests of preserving existing work.

Just like the RIAA and MPAA, these groups aren’t going to bat for the man on the bus, they’re going to bat for the elite producing segment of the population. If they won it would be another example of business interests topping the public good.

To me searchable titles are good for ME. In terms of research (I’m a student), in terms of finding books I like.

I’m glad google has some guts, frankly I wish google had more. Frankly they’re in the position, as pretty much the gatekeeper of the internet, to throw their weight around too. And I really, really wish they would.

Google put in the time and resources to scan the books. It should own the database it created. However, it should NOT have exclusive rights to the books. If I’m understanding correctly, they still will not.

Any company that wanted to do the same has the ability. The article lists the potential risks and costs, but, correct me if I’m wrong, there is no obstacle that Google didn’t face in creating their digital library. If it’s worth it, then other companies will take on the risks.

Unless Google or some form of government intervention tries to stymie competition, then I don’t see the problem. Well, I see it as a temporary problem at worst.

However, many books go out of print for a few months or even a few years, and are subsequently re-released. This is a valuable source of income to the authors and publishers. My wife is an author, and we’ve made a very nice profit over the last year on several books that were once out of print, but are currently selling very nicely.

Under this settlement, Google could have grabbed those books the minute they were out of print, copyright be damned, and sold them for whatever price they saw fit. Sure we’d have gotten a nickle from Google, but we’d never have managed to get the publisher to re-publish them. We also wouldn’t have the right to negotiate with Google, as their terms are cast in stone and immutable. Copyright basically just ceases to exist for them, and they can tell authors to bugger off. Thanks, Google!

I am not opposed to Google scanning works clearly in the public domain, whether that is in my personal interest or not. It’s legal.

However, any arguments that out-of-print books are automatically rare on the market are absurd. Check out the book metasearch engine http://www.assall.com/used. Also, arguments that most books in libraries are “unavailable” are absurd. Check out your library’s interlibrary loan policy. I myself have ILL’d a number of books dating from as early as the 1820s and received the actual book–not a photocopy, scan, or microfilm–with nary a balk on the part of the library, and for a modest ILL fee. While I am not saying that _every_ book is lent out, the fact is, that most books are and the ones libraries are willing to risk sending out are surprising to me.

Again, it would certainly be legal for a library or Google to scan those 1820s books instead of lending originals. I have no quarrel with that. However, “orphan works” date from the 20th century. I’ve bought many a one for only a few dollars apiece, hardcovers in excellent condition.

“Available” is not the same as “free”–which is what people really seem to want from Google books. However, aside from the (often defective) scans of public-domain books Google has already posted as a PR gesture, the Settlement makes it clear Google plans to sell books, not give them away.

As for arguments that having a competitive publisher (Google) publishing the exact same book increases sales: I’ve worked in book publishing for 24 years, midsize publishers as well as my own publishing house–and I don’t buy it.

“The livings of publishers, authors, editors, proofreaders, indexers, book designers, book illustrators, cover designers, and others who work in book publishing are dependent on copyright law and the defense of same. Quite simply, I do not see why people involved in producing books, should slave for free to produce information and entertainment for members of society who meanwhile, get paid for their work.”

Most interested parties mentioned are NOT members of the The Authors Guild, Inc.

This “class” was originally to include every writer in the world. Yet there was so much outcry from so many countries that the court disallowed the settlement, and most of the other countries got out. The new settlement is in the works has been downsized so now only the rights of American, Australian and Canadian writers are at risk.

And of course “Orphan works”. Presumably also the work of artists reproduced in these country’s books are also at risk. How about sheet music? Probably.

The Authors Guild, Inc. can’t even speak for the rights of all American writers, (many other American writers and their organization are passionately opposed, so how they can presume to speak for the writers of other countries?

Mister Moofoo said:

“These —– don’t speak for us, and since they don’t speak for us, we can reasonably assume they don’t speak for any authors not specifically named as members of the Authors’ Guild.”

As a reader and a writer I have no problem with Google scanning books for search results. In fact I rather think it was probably a good thing. It helps ME research things and find books I want.

The Google scans of public domain books is a good thing so long as Google doesn’t claim copyright to any of it. Too many books have already been lost to the world.

There isn’t even anything wrong with Google charging people money for physical copies of public domain work (not digital). After all, that’s the POINT of public domain. ANYONE can publish any public domain Intellectual Property without having to pay royalties.

BUT.

How a could a copyright infringement lawsuit possibly devolve into giving Google the digital rights to everything they can scan?

CALLING CANADIAN WRITERS!
======================

Canadian writers have mounted a Canadian Writers Petition in an attempt to get us removed from this dreadful deal at:
http://blog.sarahsheard.com/2010/01/calling-canadian-writers-join-our-anti-google-petition/

OPT OUT!
=======
I myself have decided to “OPT OUT” as well as signing the petition just in case, and you can find how to OPT OUT and keep your rights, as well as more about the legal issues at the American National Writer’s Union FAQ at:
http://www.nwubook.org/NWU-GBS2-FAQ.html
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
===================

There is a deadline for opting out– they must have your OPT-OUT letter by:

January 28, 2010.

Opting out means the writers/artists retain their rights.
Apparently it is best to OPT OUT via snail mail.

————————————————————-
On the bright side: if the settlement actually does go through,
Google will have pioneered a new defense for digital piracy.

Rick Novy

Or, I could opt out of the class and sue on my own. But remember that the critical class that the AG is representing here is *the authors that no one can find*. Since those authors are unlikely to come forward in force — by definition — the AG gets to speak for them and no one else is going to get that chance.