

How The Google Book Settlement Will Change The Future of Reading - javanix
http://io9.com/5501426/5-ways-the-google-book-settlement-will-change-the-future-of-reading

======
blhack
I wrote a little tongue-in-cheek blog about what I think google is trying to
do with books a while ago (it's here: <http://newslily.com/blogs/75> if you
care to read the whole thing).

Basically, I think that google is run by a couple of hugely wealthy nerds who
really do just want to do good things. Google isn't trying to steal copyright
away from anyone, they're trying to prevent a bunch of human art and knowledge
from disappearing in the basement of some demolished library somewhere.

One of the major things that people who are against what google is doing here
don't seem to understand is that they don't gain exclusive rights to the book,
they gain _distribution rights_ to _their own_ digital copies (which they will
still have to license from the copyright holders if they want to sell). This
isn't different than if I were to go home right now and start scanning my book
collection, then go to their respective publishers and try to work a deal with
them to distribute the digital copy.

I will admit that I might be horribly wrong about this, but this is how I
understand it works...

~~~
dantheman
My understanding is that if anyone else wants to embark on a similar endeavor
they will have to make their own settlement with the copyright holders. Which
mean google gets a special legal advantage that it shouldn't.

~~~
blhack
_My understanding is that if anyone else wants to embark on a similar endeavor
they will have to make their own settlement with the copyright holders. Which
mean google gets a special legal advantage that it shouldn't._

What? Wouldn't that just mean that if somebody wanted to do the same thing
that they would have to...do the same thing?

~~~
dantheman
Sorry, it is unlikely that anyone else will be able to get the same settlement
that google received. In essence they have a special right to "orphaned" works
that no one else will have.

Also, I should not I'm all for google books. I think that copyright/patents no
longer need to exist in the modern world, but if they are going to stay around
they need to apply to everyone equally.

~~~
electromagnetic
How is it a special right, the settlement basically grants them a special
license. The reason they had to go to court is because no one would give them
a license for free publication so they played the 'orphan' card and got the
other party to the table for a settlement.

Please don't argue the naive copyright shouldn't exist because my-head-is-
stuck-so-far-in-the-sand-I-hit-rock-and-forgot-common-sense angle. With
hollywood virtually cloning every successful movie that has ever existed, do
we really want to give them a free pass to actually clone every successful
movie that has ever existed? As for every successful book/movie/TV franchise
to ever exist, well they'd be gone out the window with masses of meaningless
fan-wank shot out by every publisher known to man trying to make a dollar.
Copyright has an important clause in it of preventing derivative works by
unauthorised people, this means that Harry Potter remains being written by
Rowling and actually ends in a way fans are likely to actually enjoy rather
than see a Harry Potter: Failed To Graduate Again - New Mystery Edition!

By removing copyright you negatively effect the common person more than you
positively affect them. For all I know you could be a fantastic photographer,
I myself have worked as a reviewer and have sold my work, you as a
photographer have all the rights to sell your photographs no matter where
you've posted them. Do you really want to give any company permission to take
your photographs from your Flickr account and use them in a national campaign
without your permission? Or would you prefer to get the $20,000 check that
those license purchases usually come with?

The RIAA and MPAA are the problem, not copyright. The better way to resolve
this problem is to reform copyright to limit actions taken on the copyright
holders behalf without the copyright holders permission. Legally speaking the
copyright holder has to be the person to file the claim, however due to the
licensing agreements musicians sign with their label they're actually giving
license authority to the MPAA too, which they actually don't agree too.

~~~
dantheman
The removal of copyright does not allow plagiarism or misattribution of work.
So there could be a lot books set in the harry potter world, but fans would
only buy those by the author that they like. I realize that the author has a
much better system today, but in reality it should no longer exist. For
instance, how long should we be banned from writing books in the Harry Potter
universe? 10 yeas, 20 years, forever?

As for your photography example, someone taking your photograph and using it
wouldn't be able to say that they took it. That would be fraud. If they listed
the credits for the picture you would be credited. Now of course it would be
great if 20000$ were deposited in your checking account, and I'd love it if
the law allowed me to charge people walking on the street in front of my house
for the pleasure my house gives them, but I can't.

So yes copyright is a problem it restricts what I can do with ideas, not with
physical property. My use of ideas and data that you've transferred to me does
not limit you in any way you can still do everything that you could before.
The entire concept of intellectual property is fundamentally flawed, and it
was able to exist when the means of copying material were expensive, now that
it is cheap the flaws are beginning to show and the advantages content
creators have been given is going to go away. Imagine if you had to ask
permission and pay licensee fees anytime you photographed something that was
designed by a human. What to take a picture of that tree, well I planted it
pay me 20000$, want to take a picture of a person drinking a glass of water
pay me 20000$ for glass and 20000$ for the water that comes out of the tap.

------
naner
Preservation and proliferation of culture are more important than strict
copyright adherance. I am in favor of Google's agressive approach.

But if they're ad-wording books that seems clearly unethical.

------
lolcraft
_If we go on doing it [Google's] way, we end up with a wholly-owned list of
digitized books, many stolen from their owners, totally controlled, managed,
opened and closed to public use, by a profit-making corporation interested in
furthering its monopolistic control of information. - Ursula Le Guin_

As opposed to, what exactly, how the publishers of the United States of
Fictionalamerica do? Or did Le Guin really thought her publisher was a honest
non-profit interested on sharing and expanding the public domain?

~~~
tjgabbour
Yes, that quote seemed odd, so I looked deeper at Le Guin's position.

* Most authors weren't represented in the Google Book Settlement, though they will be severely affected by it.

* The settlement is extremely complicated, and it's difficult to put across all her objections in (say) the span of an interview.

* She does want a global digital library, but not under the control of a corporation like Google. Google of course acts in its own interest (and those of its shareholders), and is not even minimally under popular control.

I agree with these points. However, I wish she'd discuss (more than just in
passing during an interview) a fair alternative to Google -- one which is
free-as-in-freedom and compensates authors/staff. (Or did I miss it?) Because
digitalization is very important, and authors' interests do conflict with
those of consumers, under our economic system.

[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2010/02/conversation-
ur...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2010/02/conversation-ursula-le-
guin.html)

