Once again, Google is facing antitrust scrutiny, this time over its proposed settlement with the Authors Guild that would clear the way for it to scan out-of-print books. Most sane people seem to agree that scanning these books and making them available in digital form is a good idea, and the settlement even provides for a token payment of up to $60 per book to go to copyright holders.
The objections, and there are many of them, seem to revolve around the right Google negotiated for itself around orphan books—books still under copyright whose copyright owners cannot be found or who simply fail to register in the Book Rights Registry set up under the settlement. If authors and other copyright holders fail to register by the deadline, which has now been extended for another four months, under the settlement Google will not be liable for any copyright infringement claims stemming from orphan works. The concern is that this will give Google monopoly rights over all orphan works, which is what it appears to do.
In letter to the judge overseeing the settlement, the Internet Archive asked to be added as party to the settlement because it too scans hundreds of thousands of library books, but it won’t be protected from “potential copyright liability.” The judge denied the Internet Archive’s request, but its arguments (embedded in the letter below) spell out the main objection:
The Archive’s text archive would greatly benefit from the same limitation of potential copyright liability that the proposed settlement provides Google. Without such a limitation, the Archive would be unable to provide some of these same services due to the uncertain legal issues surrounding orphan books.
There is also the issue of monopoly pricing. If Google is the only entity with blanket protection, it could start charging more for access to these works, or those works which prove valuable. Any single work is probably not that valuable, but taken all together they are very valuable, especially to Google which benefits by simply being able to add the text of all these books into search results and then make money off the associated search ads.
So Google is now in the position where it negotiated a favorable settlement on its behalf, but competitors are playing the monopoly card and saying that settlement would give Google an unfair advantage in book search and retrieval. And they kind of have a point. So what is the answer? Google should amend some of the terms of the settlement to make it non-exclusive and the Author’s Guild should extend the same terms to any other company or organization that wants to digitize orphan books.
In other words, Google needs to free the orphans. Don’t make this just a deal between authors and Google. Make it a deal between authors and any existing or future book digitizer. Copyright holders should also have the option to place their works under Creative Commons licenses. If Google wants to stop being treated like a monopolist, it needs to stop acting like one.
interesting. it doesn’t seem too far fetched that some or other anti-trust premise would eventually split google in future.
marvin
http://yousuggest.us
deposit money with court – that are supposed to go to the orphans. Searching book was essential, we rather want to forget past.
I think any agreement that relives one person / company from legal liabilities against copyright should be open to all.
The laws shouldn’t be waived just one entity.
I’m not sure. Google did take the effort of takeing the matter to court. They should have some kinda advantage for taking that risk
Sure, just like how Brown vs. Board should only apply to the plaintiffs.
I wonder what google’s stance is on this matter…
Didn’t they just fire hundreds of people because Google failed? Ouch. I miss Microsoft. At least they were first to announce a missed opportunity.
It doesn’t seem like there is anything preventing the Internet Archive from negotiating its own settlement with the Author’s Guild. Why should the Internet Archive or other companies be allowed to free ride on Google’s settlement deal. That seems unfair.
If the deal gives Google monopoly rights or pricing power then different rules apply.
Google is not the bad guy. Copyright law is the bad guy. Get it straight.
Yes you are right… Private property rights are evil.
Idiot.
Yes, that is why Google should not have be allowed to have any copyright to their code. That is why Google should allow open access to their entire code base. While they are at it, they should also allow open access to their cafeteria and open access (if you know what I mean) to their masseuse.
Private property rights are evil.
I assume you are leaving your doors open, your money on the table and the keys in your car… Right? That is your property and it is evil to claim ownership of something…
First, follow your own idiocy before you ask the rest of us too.
Hang on, buddy. Please don’t try to overgeneralize. The issue here is simply that what people call “intellectual property” isn’t the same as a car or my lunch.
http://www.gnu....lectualProperty
The Author’s Guild should never have done this deal and everyone should be suing them, not Google. Google made a deal and paid for it and the Author’s Guild accepted it. The monopoly is the Author’s Guild in this case, certainly not Google.
That could be. It certainly looks like the Authors Guild was out-negotiated.
Who cares about the specific details of what happened? The end result is what we see … and don’t tell me that fiction authors cannot fabricate …
Google’s monopoly deal over orphan books sounds so unreasonable. What’s Google’s argument for such a monopolistic stance?
Without knowing what the reasoning is, I can only speculate that Google believes that the deal for copyrighted materials is so good for the Author Guild that it requires monopoly over orphan books to make up for such a good deal.
Is this argument wrong? After all, deals are negotiated in the form of bundles all the time. However, I do believe that this is wrong. I don’t see how the consumers can benefit from such an exclusive deal. If Google can’t make money without the monopoly over orphan books, it should not enter this space and let other entrepreneurs figure out a way to make money without the exclusivity.
I am sure Google would not object any partners coming up to the table to split the costs of the settlement as well as the benefits. Otherwise it is
not clear why should one company, and its shareholders, pick up the bill for the copyright for everyone else.
Nobody is asking Google to pick up the bill. They just want the same rules to apply to them.
This is incorrect. There is a huge financial side of the settlement that Google is funding. It’s like getting into a restaurant and asking to eat just like everyone else, only you don’t want to pay.
Google is smart for doing this. Although it looks like the some authors who are not tech savvy will get screwed out of this whole process.
This is the start of an ending for Google BS. Time to kill the project and move on.
All complaints regarding Google’s practices fall on deaf ears; all lawsuits are dismissed. Google always comes out on top, and are run by the smartist minds in the world and have the best lawyers. No bubble. No recession. http://iamned.com/blog/ no flu pandemic. buy stocks.
Not until they agree to split it. Grrr!
The Guild oked this deal, and any company that wishes for a similar deal can ask the Guild for it as well. Google doesn’t have a monopoly, they bought rights to use a copyrighted source. It is the Guild that is the monopoly and picking and choosing who to give their rights to.
I participate in the Google Books program (and Google Scholar). I just laid claim to our ~300 titles per terms of the settlement. And I’ll tell you MANY of those titles are out of print but available digitally. Google has been HUGE in getting the content of those titles and the others as well into PAID circulation.
I’ve read the terms. The terms aren’t onerous. In fact, the terms have turned out to be pretty darned lucractive (for us) AND were agreed to by the Authors Guild and the other parties involved in the class action. Now, I don’t care if the terms extend to XYZ.com or XYZ Corp or not. Maybe they should. Google’s the big game in town and if they CAN negotiate the “big deal” exclusively… more power to em.
The fact remains my company OWNS the copyright and fair use permission power to their content. This does not in any way take that away. It simply extends our ability as the publisher to market content that was otherwise locked up in paper and ink in a new way.
And, if they weren’t helping us bring in so much incremental revenue… I don’t know I’d be saying anything different.
“The fact remains my company OWNS the copyright and fair use permission power to their content.”
I am confused here. Your company owns fair use permission power? Isn’t the whole idea of fair use based on me not having to ask you for mermission?
* permission
that’s sound good.
To dear god named ‘Google’
Please don’t trouble Orphans. You are God right you can see everything, so be like one; and spare the orphans.
To dear god named ‘Google’,
Please don’t trouble Orphans. You are God right you can see everything with all your Google earth and similar other tools, so be like one; and spare the orphans.
Waiting for blessings from God!