DONATE
Click the Pic
Posted on 05/14/2011 9:37:42 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
This Article explains that certain features of U.S. law, particularly copyright law, contributed to Google’s willingness to undertake the Google Book Search (GBS) project in the first place and later to its motivation to settle the lawsuit charging Google with copyright infringement for scanning in-copyright books. Approval of this settlement would achieve several copyright reforms that Congress might find difficult to accomplish, some of which would be in the public interest. This Article considers whether the quasi-legislative nature of the GBS settlement is merely an interesting side effect of the agreement or a reason in favor of or against approval of this settlement.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.law.wisc.edu ...
I never trust Google. But there is both good and bad with this. Do you have an opinion about the "consequences" of the recent settlement?
As someone who publishes book, Google scares the bejeebers out of me. I realize that book content is being driven towards being ‘free’ by the digital revolution, but Google is positioned to reap nearly all the remaining profit potential, even moreso than Amazon. At least Amazon is ‘book people’ as we used to call ourselves.
Instead, the people, as usual, have been stiffed on their payment. Copyright lives virtually forever, as we try to meld the exception to the rule. Do I care if one or five particular creations are considered important enough to extend the copyright on those few works? No. But when it is used as the basis to extend everyone’s ‘protections’ with no payoffs to the people, then it is just plain wrong.
Copyrights should never last more than a generation. There's good reason to not even extend it beyond a quarter of that, five years. It is completely and utterly stifling innovation and creativity as itinerant authors and song writers have no motivation to create new works, as they've got a monopoly on making money off of what they did ten, twenty, forty years ago, or worse, their families up to seventy years after the original creator's death.
That isn't a ‘limited time’ as written in the constitution. That is an eternity that exceeds the lifetime of any taxpayer who their representatives made this deal for. There is no payoff to the taxpayer, as they'll be long dead before the exchange is made - if it even happens then, as of course, it will likely be extended yet again.
We have firms who only exist to sue to protect libraries of copyrighted and patented works. How can something new be made when so much energy and court time is being used to protect that which was done decades ago? It is a broken system that needs to be tossed out wholesale until creators are once again ready to live up to their end of the bargain.
This is not an opt-in but an opt-out. The court ruling set the precedent when they ruled the Universities were “exempt”.
Google is very powerful and in the wrong camp.
I use gutenberg.org often and appreciate the ability to read out of copyright classic books, but this is different.
Opinions: 1. Requiring payment to see more than 1-2 pages has resulted in download revenue through Amazon. Expectation of paying for content results in sales. 2. Free viewing for a modest percentage of the book through Google seems to create an expectation of free content, so no paying customers. 3. I've now heard many complaints of Google Adsense canceling people's accounts for likely no legitimate reason. And you have no recourse when they do so. And due to their in depth reporting, you cannot create a new Adsense account for ad revenue on websites with them. I haven't tried their competitors, so I cannot give a comparison on that option. But their questionable practices with many people's Adsense makes me question the Google Book settlement offer of Adsense revenue for page views, which would explain the low income for the volume of recorded views. I have no problem with Google putting free domain content like old books on line and getting some ad revenue for the service. But they don't have the right to take content I took time to research and write and profit from it while MAYBE throwing me a fraction of that income.
Thanks for the detailed info. I’m going to be looking at Baker & Taylor’s print on demand next, they are book people and I guarantee want to make a buck, not just steal IP.
Google will not last forever. Let its corruptions pass, as all corruptions will, but hold onto the goods that the kids have done.
[There’s good reason to not even extend it beyond a quarter of that, five years. ]
That’s utterly nuts. I update my books every year at least, so you are saying after five years I no longer own my own work!!!!????
Go write a few books yourself, they take anywhere from a six months to years or decades to complete. The work is already minimum wage, and you want to screw the long tail potential profits? Wait till that happens to you.
Thanks for your perspective.
I posted this because I was puzzled about the lawsuit and the settlement. What is interesting is the impact of this settlement on the copyright process, without any legislation concerning it.
It looks a bit twisted to me. But I am not a lawyer.
Don't copyright it then. Don't make the exchange of your work for a government imposed monopoly on the work. Don't like the deal, don't take it. You own the work - you want to use the power of the government to prevent others from copying it, well, it comes at a cost. Sorry if you dislike the deal, it's what's in the constitution.
Go write a few books yourself, they take anywhere from a six months to years or decades to complete. The work is already minimum wage, and you want to screw the long tail potential profits? Wait till that happens to you.
I've gotten well over 300,000 words in print so far, and indeed, minimum wage looks attractive by comparison sometimes. But let's be honest here - how many books make it past the first or second print run? Not a whole heck of a lot of them. So really, for most authors, and I'm not talking the Dan Browns, Tom Clancy's and Stephen Kings - this wouldn't affect them much at all. Again, don't like the deal, then don't take it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.