Comments on: Google Book Search: What Is Plan B?

By: Jerome Garchik

Jerome Garchik — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:38:49 +0000

I am a SF Atty. I taught a seminar on the Google Settlement for California Lawyers for the Arts recently, with David Weir and Peter Brantly.Did you see today’s NY Times piece on book piracy on the web? I think this issue weighs in favor of the Settlement, and the Registry, to control outright book piracy violations.
Your comments also say nothing about the $60 to $300 per book class action damage payment to authors who file claim forms by Jan 10,2010.Authors can claim the money and still deny Google the right to e-publish snippets, preview or download, and tell Google how much to charge. Many authors I know have are pleased about the deal.partly for the exposure it promises. Did you see that Daniell Steel has endorsed Sony’s kindle device?
I think most blogs are too glib in trashing the settlement. Google scan efforts were initiated by library administrators at large public universities, and I believe ,except for Harvard, these still endorse the project.

J.Garchik, SF Attorney

By: Joshua

Joshua — Mon, 11 May 2009 04:11:49 +0000

I think there is one point neglected here somewhat, although no one wants a monpoly – at least Google opens up the service and data in a way no other publisher would ever do. Through the Google Books API you can access and take advantage of all the information they have, including embedding and viewing the books themselves.

By: Richard Hargis

Richard Hargis — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:01:49 +0000

Well, one thing’s for sure, if we can turn this thing around to the authors’ favor, we’ll be well-indexed regardless of how much or little words we sell. As the metaphor goes, I’ve been led midstream, with the creative bank on one side, the marketing on tuther. Please show me the “shallow end.”

By: Kassia Krozser

Kassia Krozser — Wed, 06 May 2009 05:01:50 +0000

Mike (vs Michael): Hysteria? Moi? Perish the thoug–okay, maybe the meandering to my point went on a bit long. I am not concerned with those rights owners who cannot be bothered to assert said rights. Once upon a time I was baffled that anyone who had a financial stake in creative work would lose track of their property, but I’ve seen it happen so often, I have lost the capacity to wonder how it happens. It does. For whatever reason, people stop caring, and if this settlement does anything to remind authors of the value of their work, I am pleased.

As a long-time proponent of this project and settlement (and I realize from comments that I need to keep making this point), I have concerns. I am not alone in my concerns. As I noted to Michael Cader, my preference would have been for Google to continue unlitigated, but I know that wouldn’t be possible in the most perfect of worlds. Obviously (hmm maybe not, but trust me), nothing I’ve written is under the scope of this settlement, but the fact that there are limitations in access impacts me. I believe we need to talk about it publicly because, weirdly (or maybe not), people who should know, should understand, should be involved were not and are not.

The stakes are long-term, so I want stakeholders to at least consider all perspectives. Authors have the right to opt-out (and I was watching some passive Twitter commentary last week where various authors were proclaiming they’d opted out, while I wondered “do they know what that means?”), but do they know the long-term impact of their actions, one way or the other?

To my mind, the absolute worst case scenario (and the one I jumped to in my timeline) is the class prevailing. Best case would be Google reverting to pre-settlement activity. That leaves the actual settlement in the middle.

Yes, thoughts evolving. I am partially thinking out loud.

By: Kassia Krozser

Kassia Krozser — Wed, 06 May 2009 04:41:54 +0000

Michael (vs Mike!) — Agreed. I did not make myself clear in that regard. I was focused on those books that, for one reason or another, have fallen into the out-of-print category. Current catalog isn’t so much a worry for various reasons (including the fact that majority of these books are already digitized). What concerns me — and I have been supportive of this settlement (and the overall project) since the beginning — is the closed nature of the system as provided by the settlement. I personally believe it would have been better for all parties involved if the litigation had never happened.

But it did. And we’re faced with a flawed settlement that, because two parties created a class that is clearly broader than being represented. I oversimplified the process, coming to a point where the publishers win (either in court or by Google ceding the field, however that happens from a legal perspective). If that happens, all of the issues remain on the table, but the burden for creating a viable digital library shifts to publishers. You know as well as I do that each house will approach this is ways that suit current management perspectives — perspectives that may very well suit short-term goals, not long-term business. You note that big trade publishers have created a method for indexing and full-text search and are willing to provide this information to Google and other search companies.

Are they really? I’m asking as one who is entirely hopeful this is the case, but cynical about openness versus need to keep things exclusive. Search on our website instead of Google and we’ll reveal all! But revealing all, when doing research, is only relevant if you can compare results to a larger population. This is where the library aspect comes into play: we need to be able to weigh various results and sources. Search is subjective, and we all know that using the same search criteria on different services yields different results.

I liked it when Microsoft was part of the game. I never felt they were committed to book search as a business model, but I liked that they provided an alternative.

By: Wyman

Wyman — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:54:52 +0000

If Google should one day look like AIG, GM, Chrysler, Citibank or lots of other big companies that may go under, who gets this asset you are speaking of and in what ways will they NOT be prohibited from using it. For example, could some future owner/controller of this content, actually sell it like books are now sold? What litigation might arise in the future? Are these questions being asked? I am far down the ladder of understanding on this. I am also wondering if future authors will be forced into having their books scanned or if not forced, put in a position where it will almost be insane to opt out if you want your work to sell or have potential for future republishing, like many classic books today. Thank you.

By: Kassia Krozser

Kassia Krozser — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:19:44 +0000

Alyssa — Did see your post and (I think) linked to it previously. I did not (as I usually do!) preface things by saying I am, generally, in favor of this settlement, though I am concerned about various precedents. Lots of ends not properly tied.

By: Mike Shatzkin

Mike Shatzkin — Wed, 06 May 2009 00:03:33 +0000

Kassia,
You’re contributing to hysteria here, although you end up making the right point.
The so-called Google monopoly is over orphans. Any book with a known c/r owner is only included if the owner wants it included. And the owner can show up and make that decision at any time. No deadline for that as I understand it.

But you end up making the important point that nobody wants to cover the expense of doing all this scanning except Google. And I’d make the point that Google is likely, for the foreseeable future, to be among the most scrutinized companies on earth for anti-social monopolistic practices. If they start extorting money from public libraries, I’m sure there will be more opportunity to discuss it in front of Congressional committees than has ever been afforded orphan rights legislation.

By: Michael Cader

Michael Cader — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:57:31 +0000

Hi Kassia. I think you may be mixing search apples with orphan oranges. The “discovery” aspect of Google Book Search is alive and well in the “Partners” program, completely separate and aside from the Library program litigation. That program, which focuses on the active, in print books that most publishers care about, marches on regardless.

Separately, remember that two big trade publishers have already created their own methods for indexing and presenting fully-searchable online versions of their books with similar capability to GBS, and third-party vendors like LibreDigital offer similar services. (And the publishers would welcome other search engines incorporating their indexes.)

By: Alyssa Smith

Alyssa Smith — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:32:53 +0000

My main objection to the settlement was not the Book Rights Registry (which, btw, has been handled by the Copyright Clearance Center up til now, albeit they are not nearly as well funded) or even the scanning of the titles and inserting them into the Google Books program, but that once the settlement is set into law, copyright owners of orphan books will have–by their inaction–given up any right to have their titles removed from Google’s database as well as any rights to sue Google for blatant disregard of their copyright.

Beyond that, I’m cool with it. That one clause though? That’s the sticking part.

Btw, did you see my post on this? It’s here: http://aqeldroma.livejournal.com/204553.html

–Alyssa (booksandcorsets)