

Federal judge rejects Google book monopoly - abraham
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/judge-rejects-google-book-monopoly.ars

======
ghshephard
The FSF brought up some real concerns about Google having a lockhold on the
intellectual property rights of all these materials (though they never
convinced me why a Company like Microsoft, or Yahoo couldn't just negotiate
the same deal with the Authors Guild and AAP).

The idea of this being okay under an "Opt-In" basis is idiotic. The entire
rationale behind the "Opt-Out" approach was _the only people who cared_ would
be the ones most capable and likely to opt out. The 99% of abandoned or
orphaned works that have nobody to speak to, or nobody to find - would
automatically return to the public domain where they belong.

For those Naysayers - how do you propose we prevent losing all those orphaned
works to decay, and, just as importantly, make them accessible to the entire
world - that's what Google was offering. In an ideal world, we'd have a sane
copyright system which would terminate author's copyrights after some
reasonable period of time unless they (or their estate) renewed their copy
rights. That way, give an author, say, 20 years of exclusive rights, renewable
for up to 40 more years (in 20 year increments) or 20 after their death,
whichever is longer.

In that world - You could copy all the books, and, when the ISBN indicated
it's copyright was expired - it would become searchable.

That _certainly_ will inspire authors to create new works - An author creating
a material would be guaranteed income for them and their estate for a minimum
of 60 years (presuming they die the very next day), or potentially more than
100 years - but, at the same time, means that works return to the public
domain once nobody cares, creating a richer creative commons.

The problem with _this_ world is that copyrights continue for insane periods
of time because a few content owners (of the hundreds of thousands who have
created content) - have successfully lobbied for stretching out the copyright
windows on ALL WORKS - not just the ones that people care about and are
extracting economic value from, without thinking of the negative impacts on
the creative commons. Thanks Disney. (Ironically one who very effectively
mines the creative commons for their own works)

Remember, the purpose of copyrights and patents is not to create some
monopolistic/locked-in intellectual property blackhole, rather, in the United
States at least, it is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Emphasis on "promote the progress" and "securing for limited time"

Hopefully today's decision was a not big step backwards - in an ideal world,
this settlement is modified such that it's available to all content
archivers/searchers, such that they will have access to the same terms as
Google, and we'll be able to truly "Promote the Progress of Science and Useful
Arts."

------
bugsy
Glad it's been rejected. Google is wanting to circumvent US copyright law by
creating law through the civil courts. The civil courts are not the
appropriate venue to change copyright law.

In addition, the idea of seizure of out of print or allegedly orphaned works,
which has been promoted as a cause in conjunction with articles about this
case, disturbs me. Someone can start selling my out of print publications just
because I choose not to publish them for any reason? Well then, why shouldn't
I also be able to stroll on into Google then and take home any orphan
computers they have that they aren't currently using. Or head into my
neighbor's garage and collect the orphan tools there that he has forgotten
about.

If someone wants to publish an in-copyright work, they need the explicit
permission of the copyright holder. The issue of "can't be found" is not
relevant because they are not even trying. Instead they set up a clearing
house that collects money and which the author then has to take-or-leave
regarding royalties, with no negotiation possible, and if they don't fill out
all the right paperwork they get nothing. Why should I be forced to submit to
a bureaucracy of some organization I don't like and don't want anything to do
with because some judge has decreed them my agent for working with Google Book
sales? Glad the judge said no to that nonsense.

~~~
yonran
Google already has advocated for orphan works legislation. You can search for
David Drummond's arguments on Google. The settlement was entirely consistent
with Google's previous statements regarding legislation.

As for your "orphan computer" analogy, in fact, there _are_ abandoned property
laws that give the owner a reasonable opportunity to make claims to the
property. In my state, you're supposed to bring property to the police
station, and if no one claims it for a few months, it's yours. The proposed
nonprofit registry was supposed to be similar for intellectual property.

------
RexRollman
Although I personally can appreciate what Google was trying to do here, even
if it was self serving, I have to say that I agree with the judge. Hopefully,
this setback will make Google come up with a better plan.

------
coliveira
I understand that people want access to information, but what Google is trying
to do is completely against copyright law. Copyright, as the name says, is a
right given to someone over a property (an intellectual property). You cannot
remove that right by just advertising that you should opt out if you don't
want that to happen. The debate has to be much bigger than this, and if
necessary copyright law needs to be changed so that other uses are possible by
anyone (not just Google).

~~~
ghshephard
I fail to understand (conceptually) how this is any different than what ASCAP
has already negotiated with songwriters, composers, lyricists and music
publishers .

Do you oppose what Pandora does?

See: <http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html>

A brief excerpt:

"It is impossible for individual composers and publishers to monitor the
hundreds of thousands of businesses that use music. It would be equally
difficult, time consuming and expensive for business owners to locate and
negotiate with all the owners of the music that might be used. There is a
simple, fast and reasonably priced alternative. Through ASCAP, in one simple
transaction, businesses can obtain the right to perform the millions of songs
created or owned by more than 400,000 of America's and hundreds of thousands
of the world's best songwriters, composers, lyricists and publishers. Founded
in 1914, and still owned by and managed for its writer and publisher members,
ASCAP grants businesses the permission they need to perform music publicly.
The money collected is distributed, after deducting operating costs (currently
11.3%), directly to ASCAP members and to affiliated foreign performing rights
organizations for their members. "

~~~
bugsy
"what ASCAP has already negotiated with songwriters, composers, lyricists and
music publishers"

There is a huge difference. ASCAP represents ASCAP members, who choose to join
the organization. ASCAP then becomes a legal agent regarding collecting
royalties for the musician. Many musicians join BMI instead. But crucially,
many do not join either organization. Neither organization is a publisher,
they are a music licensing organization that works for its members.

For this to be comparable, ASCAP would become the representative of musicians
whether they want that or not, and would be able to publish musician's works
without permission. That is certainly not what ASCAP does now.

------
deadcyclo
I think this illustrates how screwed up copyright has become.

I dream of a world where copyright lasts for 14 years or the copyright holder
dies, which ever comes last. Thus an individual can retain copyright for life.
If he or she dies before 14 years have passed the heirs will benefit for
however much of the 14 years are left. Corporations would never hold a
copyright for longer than 14 years.

I'm convinced that this would be a fair system for everyone and would return
copyright to its original intention; to promote creativity and writing rather
than being a corporate cash machine that screwes everybody other than the
large corporations.

~~~
moultano
In your system could corporations own copyrights? In that case how long would
the copyright last? What about works by many authors? (Mostly agree with you,
but the devil is in the details.)

~~~
deadcyclo
No problem with many authors, simply expire when the last author dies.

Corporations I sort of already said something about. However I must admit I
like how things work in the Norwegian equivalent of copyright: You can
transfer "copyright" to corporations, but if, and only if there is an employee
relationship (either you are employed or working as an independent
contractor). This for example means that as a student you retain full
"copyright" to all of your work (master thesis etc.), but as a professor it
can be transfered to the university.

In addition you always retain your "ideal rights" no matter what, even if the
rest of the "copyright" is transfered to your employee. I don't think american
copyright has an equivalent to this. Basically it means that no matter what
you have 1) the right to be identified as the creator and 2) the right to deny
derivative works to be associated to you.

This means that if somebody makes a movie based on your book you can say "Hey,
this movie completely misses the point, I don't want to be associated to it in
any shape or form" and the creator of the movie cannot use your name at all.

This does however mean that there is no such thing as public domain in Norway,
since there is no way of giving up your "ideal rights". Even if you put
something out there under terms that in the US would be public domain, you
cannot give up your right to be identified as the creator or your right to not
be associated with derivative works.

------
itg
"In his ruling, Chin hinted that he would look more favorably on an "opt-in"
settlement—e.g. one that applied only to those authors and publishers who
explicitly chose to accept it."

Seems reasonable. The whole opt-out design gave too much power to google, and
everybody already knows what a massive pain it is to get in touch with google
if a problem arises.

~~~
ghshephard
The problem, of course, is that the works most likely to benefit from the
settlement, those that are orphaned or abandoned, will have no-one to opt-in
for them.

Works that aren't orphaned have already opted in - just go to amazon.com. :-)

------
kragen
What would be awesome would be if Google fights these guys in court and wins,
getting a decision that what they do to web pages is legal to do to books,
too.

~~~
gojomo
Indeed! Google started by arguing that scanning/indexing/showing-snippets was
legal, then switched to 'settle in a way that gives us the pole position and
lays mines for everyone behind us'. They should get back to arguing the fair-
use principle.

------
gluejar
The photo leading this article is really gratuitous. Do we really need to look
at a cute librarianish book stamper to get us interested in serious issues?

------
yanw
Just to balance this article a bit; here is an excerpt from the judgment
pointing to the many potential benefits to this deal:

 _The benefits of Google's book project are many. Books will become more
accessible. Libraries, schools, researchers, and disadvantaged populations
will gain access to far more books. Digitization will facilitate the
conversion of books to Braille and audio formats, increasing access for
individuals with disabilities. Authors and publishers will benefit as well, as
new audiences will be generated and new sources of income created. Older books
-- particularly out-of-print books, many of which are falling apart buried in
library stacks -- will be preserved and given new life._

