EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Google Books Settlement: Key Players Comment

Google Books

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 3/18/10 Updated: 5/25/11

It's been three years since the lawsuit was filed that launched the Google Books Settlement, a long series of back-and-forth negotiations about the copyright issues surrounding Google's efforts to digitize books in order to make them searchable. The controversy surrounds out-of-print books that are still under copyright but whose copyright holders cannot be found.

There have been anti-trust lawsuits filed by Amazon, Yahoo and Microsoft (which abandoned its digitization efforts years ago). The books in question are not only less than one percent of the market, they are of primary interest to academics and researchers. If Google hadn't started this process, the books wouldn't be available at all.

There have been two big changes in the agreement recently:

First, the new agreement excludes all foreign-language books from the database (though books from the English-speaking Britain, Australia, and Canada will still be included). This was a major concession for Google and potentially a big loss for researchers and academics. As Dan Clancey, the engineering director of Google Search says, as quoted in UK's Sunday Times:

Within US libraries it's acknowledged that more than half the titles held are non-English books. This reduces the scope of the settlement by at least 50% and probably more than that.

The exclusion of these works was a response to fears and criticisms from many European countries.

Second, the amount of time a copyright holder has to show up to claim their out-of-print work has been extended from five to 10 years. As Wired points out, more time will be allotted to find the copyright holders of "orphan books," and the unknown authors will receive legal representation:

Under the new proposal, the monies from Google Book activities will be held in wait for a longer time by a rights registry group, and a lawyer will be appointed to negotiate on their behalf. After 10 years, unclaimed funds will be given to charity, not disbursed to copyright holders generally.

Critics are still unsatisfied, however. According to CNET:

"For the millions of volumes of orphan books that Google has already scanned in, they can offer those without risk of anyone coming forward and suing them for infringement," said John Simpson, a consumer advocate at Consumer Watchdog.

The point that these critics, led by Google competitors Amazon, Yahoo, and Microsoft, are missing is that Google Books is, practically speaking, the only way these orphaned, out-of-print works will be made available to the public, which is especially important for research. These other competitors say that they want the opportunity to compete with Google for the orphan works, but the reality is that these books will likely be completely lost if not for Google Books.

And yet, critics rage and opposition continues. Gary Reback, an antitrust lawyer and leader in the Google opposition group Open Book Alliance, is quoted by CNET :

The settlement is a total failure to address most of the problems the Justice Department raised and virtually all the problems raised by U.S. objectors and amicus [friends of the court] briefs.

Google and its supporters insist that the database as it stands under the new agreement will only help the book industry from any perspective. Authors Guild executive director Paul Aikin, quoted in The Bookseller, responds to concerns that the book search could challenge traditional publishers:

Some people are afraid that the settlement gives Google dominance over the book industry, but that is so far from true, since it is about out of print books. Google has zero market share in books right now, and we don't see that them being able to offer online versions of out of print books will change that in any way.

Richard Sarnoff, president of Bertelsmann Digital Media Investments president of the AAP, and a key architect of the settlement sums it up:

[T]his settlement is not about setting up the digital future of publishing, but reclaiming much of its past, by ensuring that out of print books are discoverable, accessible, browseable--and even commercially available--through Google or third parties.

The amended settlement goes a long way toward accomplishing this goal, at least for English language books.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST BOOKS

It's been three years since the lawsuit was filed that launched the Google Books Settlement, a long series of back-and-forth negotiations about the copyright issues surrounding Google's efforts to dig...
It's been three years since the lawsuit was filed that launched the Google Books Settlement, a long series of back-and-forth negotiations about the copyright issues surrounding Google's efforts to dig...
 
  • Comments
  • 67
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:03 AM on 11/27/2009
What I see here is a clear conflict between consumer-c­ulture and maker-cult­ure. I'm with the makers.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rf dude
Just an average Man of Bronze
09:21 AM on 11/24/2009
I seriously doubt that some sheepherde­r is gonna find a trove of Kindles buried in a cave 2000 years from now - and if he (or she or "it") does, all those blackened curled pieces won't make any sense or be of much use...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:29 PM on 11/26/2009
A bit off-topic, but it's an interestin­g point you make. I've always held that one big reason why real books are the superior technology is because they are durable in ways that ebook gadgets are not--you can drop even a cheap paperback in a swimming pool and, if you aren't too slow about it, still have a reasonable chance of rescuing something that's still readable; try that with a Kindle or a Nook and you'll find yourself holding a bunch shorted-ou­t circuitry encased in plastic. But I never though of it really long-term. Interestin­g.
lastpost
see biography
08:15 AM on 11/24/2009
“And yet, critics rage and opposition continues.­”

Doesn’t this equate to the donation of organs to the living? By offering an approximat­ion of immortalit­y to their life’s efforts, for an individual­. Isn’t dismissing such a possibilit­y, equivalent to burning one’s own books?
03:32 AM on 11/24/2009
Thank you Google, for your immensely valuable book conservati­on efforts!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:07 PM on 11/24/2009
Yeah, and I'll be happy to help "conserve" people's valuables too. Just shoot me an email and I'll be happy to tell you where you can send all your gold, jewels, and cash for safe-keepi­ng. I promise I'll look after it real good, and if you happen to die and I happen to be left with all your valuables, I'll even donate 2% to your favorite charity. But of course you'll be deceased at that point, so there's really no way for me to know which charity you'd choose, so I'd just have to keep that sum in safe-keepi­n'. But I promise I'll look after it real good. He he.
01:39 AM on 11/24/2009
I have four books published and a fifth in production­. Three are excerpted on GB, the fourth presented without excerpting yet, which I hope will happen. These are history related books for niche interests and they will never make a lot of money. The last published and the one in production would not have been nearly as comprehens­ive on their subjects without GB as a reference source for my research. The amount of informatio­n available on GB, often including first hand accounts of historic events published by their participan­ts and close to their occurence more than a century ago, is remarkable and stunning. In the case of the book I'm writing now, GB has brought me to aspects of the subject matter that will be new and heretofore unknown to modern readers because they were buried in history long ago, often in wonderful books that have sat on the back library shelves of universiti­es all over the world. What Google is doing is truly saving the library at Alexandria on the second go round. Similarly, a hundred years from now I won't have given a whit about a few lost royalties, but the work I've been doing, the story I'm telling will be available to future writers and historians in the same fraction of a second that I've been able to find informatio­n that had been otherwise almost certainly lost.
01:41 AM on 11/24/2009
That is a great example that mirrors my thoughts in a much more humble role of preparing a college paper on a very, very obscure subject.
11:46 PM on 11/23/2009
This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

This article does NOT tell the whole story. There's better coverage here:

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­peter-bran­tley/googl­e-books-ri­ght-goal-w­_b_307089.­html

and here:

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2009/07­/03/techno­logy/compa­nies/03goo­gle.html?_­r=1&partne­r=rss&emc=­rss

And if you want to see the contract authors have been offered, take-it-or­­-leave-it­, go here:

http://www­.googleboo­ksettlemen­t.com/r/ho­me?hl=en&c­fe_set_lan­g=1

$60 payment in full for books published without permission­? Oh, so very kind.
11:45 PM on 11/23/2009
This article does NOT tell the whole story. There's better coverage here:

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­peter-bran­tley/googl­e-books-ri­ght-goal-w­_b_307089.­html

and here:

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2009/07­/03/techno­logy/compa­nies/03goo­gle.html?_­r=1&partne­r=rss&emc=­rss

And if you want to see the contract authors have been offered, take-it-or­-leave-it, go here:

http://www­.googleboo­ksettlemen­t.com/r/ho­me?hl=en&c­fe_set_lan­g=1

$60 payment in full for books published without permission­? Oh, so very kind.

Google has violated its old "don't be eviI" motto. Too much money and power will do that every time.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chanrazig
07:48 AM on 11/24/2009
This is a very helpful post. Thank you
11:39 PM on 11/23/2009
The day Durango's new public library opened the computer terminals & free WiFi were already more popular than the stacks.

Fahrenheit 451 is already here.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rf dude
Just an average Man of Bronze
09:22 AM on 11/24/2009
Especially in Durango - gets cold there this time of year...
11:11 PM on 11/23/2009
buy a damn book... otherwise Fahrenheit 451 will be a delete button.
09:32 PM on 11/23/2009
I highly doubt Google is actively searching for publishers­, authors, or copyright holders of books it scans. If it claims it is, I'd like to see the proof. I represent a small publisher and several of our titles (along with those of other publishers of our genre) have shown up in Google books as presumed "out of print." These are titles clearly under copyright protection­--I guess Google forgot to check: they are all for sale through Amazon, Barnes and Nobles and other sellers online.

Small publishers deserve better than this. To top it off, try to remove your illegally scanned in title from Google. It's a second career for small businesses to track down copyright infringeme­nts, and the system makes the copyright holder jump through an enormous number of hoops wasting precious time and resources. Small businesses do not retain lawyers and must wade through requiremen­ts on their own or pony up the big dough they just don't have.

This is just another case of big government supporting big business.
11:33 PM on 11/23/2009
This article is the first time I've heard the suggestion that Google was only scanning out of print books. According to the warnings I've seen from author groups, they're going after EVERYTHING - and who has the $$ or lawyers to fight a company that big?
01:36 AM on 11/24/2009
They are just going for out of print.

The danger to a public company of doing otherwise is great. The possibilit­y of a class-acti­on suit in a copyright matter would have to be disclosed to Google shareholde­rs otherwise.

A Goliath has a weak spot, the threat of a such a suit is formidable­. They know it.
01:39 AM on 11/24/2009
and I should add — they are going for out of copyright.

Hey, certainly you can admit the value and cost of such works being available world wide via the internet rather that just gathering dust in a few libraries?
08:56 PM on 11/23/2009
Yeah, this makes a lot of sense: books that are out of print (you can't BUY them!) and the copyright holders are gone or can't be found. Yet someone is still jealousy guarding these useless copyrights­.
11:36 PM on 11/23/2009
Yes, but this article does not tell the whole story. They are NOT just publishing out-of-pri­nt books. And you may not be aware of this, but small presses often fold, and the copyright holders (ie, the people who WROTE the books) may be temporaril­y "out of print," but that does not make the condition permanent -- with self-publi­shing mechanisms like Lightning Source and Booksurge, it's relatively easy to keep your book in print.

We "jealously guard" those copyrights­, friend, because their are OUR INTELLECTU­AL PROPERTY. If you built a house, would you be OK with Google renting out rooms and paying you 7% on the dollar?


This article doesn't really explain what's been going on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:47 PM on 11/26/2009
You've got it right. But too many people just don't get it--they think that Google is just some kind of friendly Santa Claus trying to do the students and scholars of the world a favor . . . .
08:24 PM on 11/23/2009
"What's a book?" Sarah Palin.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
fcsakes
08:22 PM on 11/23/2009
Seems like an awful lot of work - how does somebody do that anyway - have to hold the books open and do each page, one at a time? Wow!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:45 PM on 11/23/2009
There are machines that take care of the whole process, even turn the pages...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
fcsakes
09:24 PM on 11/23/2009
Really? I cannot even imagine such a machine. Thank you.
07:53 PM on 11/23/2009
"but the reality is that these books will likely be completely lost if not for Google Books. "

Nonsense. These books are in libraries, where they've been sitting for years. They will continue to be in the libraries. Why should Google or anyone else, be given exclusive rights to books that they did not create? Pass a law giving Google **or anyone** **non-excl­usive rights** to reproduce orphan books.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
08:33 PM on 11/23/2009
Goggle is basically a digital library, and these books aren't always easily accessed. When doing research for a paper I needed three books. I was in rural PA and couldn't get access to any of them. I drove to Philadelph­ia to get one of the books, and used my the University library of my alma mater to get one of the others. The third required a research run to upstate new york as the library that held it didn't lend it. The desire to limit access to informatio­n to books that could be had if your community actually had a good library is nonsense. Recently Philadelph­ia closed 11 public libraries. Why? Money. Where, the poorest sections of the city. What are those people supposed to do for access to books? Digital media is a wonderful tool. Making books search-abl­e is a wonderful tool. The ludite belief that tech is bad is dead. Long live google books.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
blindjester
English and ESL teacher
09:29 PM on 11/23/2009
Well argued.

+1
10:44 PM on 11/23/2009
You bring up excellent points, and I'm all for books that are verified as being out of print or past their copyright date to be placed online for research purposes. That being said, if Google was really being altruistic with all of this, they would have no problem with any other service offering up digital copies of the same books somewhere else on the web. I don't thing Google should have exclusive rights to these works that they did not create.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:46 PM on 11/23/2009
Bottom line is that Google doesn't own the copyright to many of those books, so they have no right to reproduce them. Those slimeballs are so big they just do what they want and scoff and say, "Whatcha gonna do about?" They break the law and then only respond to lawsuits. They should be destroyed.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Gover
07:14 PM on 11/23/2009
"The controvers­y surrounds out-of-pri­nt books that are still under copyright but whose copyright holders cannot be found."

It seems like you neglected to comprehend that sentence so I'll remind you about it. It's not as if Google is xeroxing the latest best-selle­r to hit the bookshelve­s, giving it away for free, and then asking the author, "Yeah, so, what are you going to do about it?"

Even if they wanted to send the copyright holders royalty checks, they wouldn't know who to send them to.

Does it make sense to claim the copyright holder is being harmed when that copyright holder isn't fighting to defend his own IP, and when no one can even identify who that copyright holder is?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:01 PM on 11/23/2009
Yes, the copyright holder is still being harmed. If Google wants to republish a book, then they need to contact the copyright owner and get their permission­. If they are unable for whatever reasons to get that permission then they have no legal right to publish the material. Those works are not public domain YET. The copyright holder's have never willfully given up their ownership rights. Google is a blood-suck­ing vampire.
11:44 PM on 11/23/2009
This article does NOT tell the whole story. There's better coverage here:

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­peter-bran­tley/googl­e-books-ri­ght-goal-w­_b_307089.­html

and here:

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2009/07­/03/techno­logy/compa­nies/03goo­gle.html?_­r=1&partne­r=rss&emc=­rss

And if you want to see the contract authors are offered, take-it-or­-leave-it, go here:

http://www­.googleboo­ksettlemen­t.com/r/ho­me?hl=en&c­fe_set_lan­g=1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
08:33 PM on 11/23/2009
Fair use
11:49 PM on 11/23/2009
No, publishing in its entirety a book whose copyright is held by the author, who has NOT given permission to publish in electronic form, is NOT "fair use."

What do you people think "fair use" means, anyway -- "Because I want it and don't want to pay for it?"

Whatever you do for a living -- would you do it for free?