After years of to-ing and fro-ing, Google and the Authors Guild/Association of American Publishers have reached a settlement regarding Google’s BookSearch program. Yes. It’s true. For a mere $125 million (pocket change, really, for Google), the program is back on track and the publishing industry is ready to play nice with the world’s largest search engine.
Whoo-hoo!
Sorry, feeling a bit sarcastic here.
First glance, it looks like a big win for Google. Yes, there is that $125 million, which is parsed into various buckets, including a good sum earmarked for the creation of a “Book Rights Registry” — something that, if done right, really will be a huge benefit to the industry (still amazed that this doesn’t currently exist). There seems to be a mechanism for author trickle-down in this settlement, but color some of us skeptical in light of how much money has reached musicians in other settlements. At the end of the day, however, Google is getting lots of access to books and the potential revenue increase this access means.
Still, it’s an even bigger win for the publishing industry. It continues to baffle me that it took approximately three years of litigation to get this far. That’s three years of lost gains and potential lost revenues. Makes my head hurt to think that so much time was wasted. Recall, if you will, that during this dead period, Amazon was able to introduce the closed-system Kindle, creating another kind of pressure on publishers to fall in line with an Internet giant.
There are some things I really like (full text of the settlement here for your reading pleasure): increased access to out-of-print books, coupled with a compensation mechanism for authors and publishers. There will be additional ways for consumers to purchase books, including building an electronic market. Note to publishers: this is why you want e-readers to be open and easy for all platforms, not just one retailer.
There is a even a shout-out to libraries — more ways for readers to get to books — by offering free access to full text viewing at public libraries (though one smiles at the deliberate use of “designated computers” in describing how this access will be doled out to the public). Even a subscription model for colleges, universities, and other organizations has been added to the mix.
The real winners — other than Google — are consumers. The settlement appears to lay a framework for increased access to information…with maximum flexibility. It contemplates changing technology and, dare I say it?, a future where “books” are not necessarily books. The fact that there are revenue models outlined indicates a commitment on changing with the changing business.
This is a complex settlement with lots of moving parts (we do love us some legal language!). It shouldn’t have gone on this long — in the PersonaNonData Extra Credit reading assigned below, he agrees with the BS Braintrust that the entire world has changed since 2005, when this nonsense began. Now it’s time to make up for lost time.
Extra Credit:
30 responses so far ↓
Mark // Oct 28, 2008 at 11:18 am
Here here.
Mike Cane // Oct 28, 2008 at 11:33 am
>>>though one smiles at the deliberate use of “designated computers” in describing how this access will be doled out to the public
Yeesh. The NYPL allows access to pro databases via home computers (if you have an NYPL card) — but Not All. I guess this will be one more under Not All.
Other thoughts on the Google Book Search Deal « Eoin Purcell’s Blog // Oct 28, 2008 at 12:50 pm
[…] Booksquare: Still, it’s an even bigger win for the publishing industry. It continues to baffle me that it took approximately three years of litigation to get this far. That’s three years of lost gains and potential lost revenues. Makes my head hurt to think that so much time was wasted. Recall, if you will, that during this dead period, Amazon was able to introduce the closed-system Kindle, creating another kind of pressure on publishers to fall in line with an Internet giant. […]
Don Linn // Oct 28, 2008 at 1:32 pm
It sounds like a winner all around. The devil, as always, will be in the details, the execution and the ongoing management. If Google runs the deal with as much, ahem, consideration as they’ve shown publishers to date, it could be significantly less appealing to publishers.
On balance though, more access should result in more sales, which we could all use.
Eoin Purcell // Oct 28, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Great Post Kassia!
I’m glad this has happened! I’m looking forward to European and worldwide solutions!
I note that Medialoper wisely posits Rightsholders as the winners as opposed to publishers!
long term I think that distinction might be very important!
Eoin
Eoin Purcell // Oct 28, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Not that currently, as the rightsholder, publishers won’t benefit! Just to clarify!
Eoin
Stop Press for October 28th | booktwo.org // Oct 28, 2008 at 4:36 pm
[…] Google, Publishers, Authors Guild Settle | Booksquare – Kassia makes good points all round. You have to wonder how things might be different if publishers had gone into this with a different attitude though. […]
bowerbird // Oct 28, 2008 at 7:27 pm
> The real winners
> — other than than Google —
> are consumers.
don’t be ridiculous.
there’s no way to say this
with any confidence at all
when we still don’t know
how much “consumers”
will have to pay for access.
-bowerbird
Kassia Krozser // Oct 28, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Consumers win because they get access to information in the way they want it. Bottom line: Google is (currently) the world’s most popular search engine, meaning people seeking information will utilize Google to find it. I will stipulate that publishers and authors will benefit from this discovery, but consumers — those people who want, need, desire information — will have far greater benefit.
The scope of this settlement means that there will be far more possible information to consumers — more choice. Price? Man, that’s going to be all over the map, and it’s going to be dependent upon so many factors. Look at the potential for chunking and recombining content.
For those of us who are looking for ways to buy, read, or access out-of-print (as opposed to out-of-copyright) works, this is a tremendous boon. I sincerely hope this leads to more publishers taking advantage of this opportunity (while, yes, I still sincerely hope that authors who can get their rights back to set their own terms).
If the cost is prohibitive, this fails. Spectacularly. To the best of my knowledge, nobody involved in this deal is a charitable institution, at least not in the philanthropic sense of the word. Success depends on pricing the product in a competitive way.
The sheer scope of titles coupled with the multi-pronged approach to distribution creates so many opportunities for people to access books. Could I quibble with bits and pieces of the deal? Who couldn’t? It might be a bit much to say it’s game changing, but, here at BS HQ (where all conversations are witnessed by at least two neighbors), we see it as pretty major.
So, no, I don’t think saying that consumers win is a ridiculous position.
Mark // Oct 28, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Hear.. ur… there!
I was excited about ‘making up lost time.’ So excited that I forgot how to spell (above). Eek! That excitement is subsiding a bit now that I have read most of the commentary from today. I am left with the following questions:
1) What about fair use? This was the basis of Google’s defense and the settlement makes the issue go dark. Fair use isn’t in the DMCA either. I am worried that the obsessive culture of ownership around intellectual in general and books specifically will harm reading in the long run.
2) What about territorial rights? The settlement seemingly reinforces the artificial boundaries that exist in the physical world. Will this settlement end up supporting an old business model that needs to fail?
3) Does the book registry make Google the new Bowker? Google isn’t terribly good at being transparent and accessible when it comes to its (mainly self) services. A great coup for them for sure but will they get bored with it, like they have with so many other of their projects?
Kassia Krozser // Oct 29, 2008 at 6:21 am
Quick answers because it’s a crazy morning. Some believe fair use took a serious hit. I worry too about the squeeze on fair use, so it will be interesting to see how this really plays out. I’m still gathering my thoughts here, for what it’s worth.
Yes, territorial rights remain alive and well. Sadly, it’s not a problem that Google can solve because it’s a huge internal battle within the publishing industry. Nobody wants to lose ground, and if that means building artificial borders to maintain a sense of “territory”, have no fear…they will do that. Which is shame (and one way consumers really do lose!).
I don’t think this makes Google the new Bowker. More like the new copyright office — call me idealistic, but it seems like we already have a government agency that, ostensibly, keeps track of this information. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do so in a way that facilitates doing business in the modern world.
Google won’t actually own this database, if I’m understanding things correctly. It will (ultimately) be an industry resource that they can access as they brings works into Book Search and exploit them in the myriad ways contemplated in the agreement.
Off for coffee and a long day!
GBS Deal: My Three Questions | INDEX // mb // Oct 29, 2008 at 9:47 am
[…] Krozser over at Booksquare had a pretty balanced reaction to yesterday’s GBS settlement. In contrast, my two posts from yesterday were pretty half-baked so I would like to point to three […]
bowerbird // Oct 29, 2008 at 11:54 am
> Success depends on
> pricing the product
> in a competitive way.
the publishing industry
and its customers have
wildly differing definitions
of “success”, however…
> The sheer scope of titles
> coupled with the
> multi-pronged approach
> to distribution creates
> so many opportunities for
> people to access books.
let’s hope the _price_ doesn’t
smash those “opportunities”
into tiny little shards of glass…
> So, no, I don’t think
> saying that consumers win
> is a ridiculous position.
it most certainly is ridiculous
when you have no idea what
the price will be. you’ve just
written them a blank check.
-bowerbird
Kirk Biglione // Oct 29, 2008 at 12:16 pm
@bowerbird – Remember, these books are out of print. Most consumers would never have an opportunity to discover or read any of these books without Google Book Search. So, the mere fact that a huge number of books becomes readily accessible is a big win for consumers.
Also, regardless of the cost to purchase individual titles, consumers will have access to these books from any library. So, some level of free access is built into the deal.
bowerbird // Oct 29, 2008 at 11:04 pm
kirk-
these books are sitting on shelves
in university libraries, and can be
summoned via interlibrary loan
and read for _free_, any time…
have you forgotten _that_?
besides, under the rules so far,
an out-of-print book meant that
the publisher had given up on it,
and expected no further gains…
which is why the rights generally
reverted _back_ to the authors.
this is a huge grab by publishers,
on content that they’d deserted,
and google decided to abet them
by setting up an infrastructure
which raises the cost of entry to
any possible google competitors
to an astronomically high level…
maybe you people have forgotten,
or maybe you never had the vision
in the first place, but _my_ vision
is for a _library_ — meaning a
place where you can check out
books for _free_ — that exists in
_cyberspace_ and thus can be
visualized on my computer screen.
access itself isn’t enough, if it
comes attached to a high price.
-bowerbird
Kirk Biglione // Oct 30, 2008 at 7:18 am
@Bowerbird
> these books are sitting on shelves
> in university libraries, and can be
> summoned via interlibrary loan
> and read for _free_, any time…
And now you’ll be able to read them at your local library without waiting for that interlibrary loan to come through. You’ll also have access to books that probably wouldn’t have been available through interlibrary transfer.
> besides, under the rules so far,
> an out-of-print book meant that
> the publisher had given up on it,
> and expected no further gains…
>
> which is why the rights generally
> reverted _back_ to the authors.
>
> this is a huge grab by publishers,
> on content that they’d deserted,
This agreement does nothing to transfer any rights that may have reverted back to the author. Authors can register their titles with the Registry of Books and collect royalties for any use. I don’t see any scenario where that’s a bad thing.
> access itself isn’t enough, if it
> comes attached to a high price.
Since you’ve brought up price again, I’ll reiterate my response to you re: consumer pricing that I made over on Medialoper.
You commented:
> given that publishers have been whining loudly
> about the default $9.99 price that amazon has,
> because they think it’s too low!
Remember, these are out-of-print books. The $9.99 Kindle editions are front list. Publishers want to charge as much as possible for those books while they’re new and there’s still a demand.
Backlist is worth much less. And out-of-print backlist is theoretically worth the least. These are books they couldn’t justify keeping in print because there was no way to make money from them.
For consumer purchases (which seems to be what you’re most interested in) there will be two pricing categories. A Specified Price and a Settlement Controlled Price.
The Specified Price is just what the name implies. The rightsholder names the price and that’s what Google will charge.
The Settlement Controlled Pricing will is an automated pricing structure that will be controlled by a Google created Pricing Algorithm. The goal of the algorithm will be to maximize value for the individual books, while providing the public with reasonable access. Basically the algorithm will dump books into various pricing bins based on some formula that only a certified Google genius could understand.
And this is the part where I can kind of, sort of, answer your question. Those pricing bins are: $1.99, $2.99, $3.99, $4.99, $5.99, $6.99, $7.99, $8.99, $9.99, $14.99, $19.99 and $29.99.
And the allocation to those pricing bins will be: 5% ($1.99), 10% ($2.99),
13% ($3.99), 13% ($4.99), 10% ($5.99), 8% ($6.99), 6% ($7.99), 5%
($8.99), 11% ($9.99), 8% ($14.99), 6% ($19.99) and 5% ($29.99)
So, from the looks of it 51% of the books will be available for consumer purchase for $5.99 or less. Or rather, 51% of the books that are priced under the Settlement Controlled Pricing method.
Kassia Krozser // Oct 30, 2008 at 9:21 am
bowerbird wrote:
Libraries are not free — they are funded by taxpayers (talking public libraries, US model). Those same taxpayers then recoup their investment through the seemingly “free” access to books. What seems free to you is subsidized in some way, shape, or form.
However, at no point in my mental process do I imagine a place that is “free” for all — by that I mean that I fully expect rights holders to be compensated for their work (be it the author or the publisher who then pays the author). Of course, if a rights owner chooses to make this work free to the consumer, that is perfectly fine. Google anticipates making money via advertising and, I believe, a share of the revenue. Rights owners anticipate making money via sales, with this increased exposure to their work increasing those potential sales (plus, there is the potential for new revenue streams).
You want this access to be free, and I imagine that there will continue to be a lot of free content on the web. So many people are giving information away. But when you have a project of the scale being contemplated here, someone has to pay — Google is not a charity, publishers are not charities, and authors are not charities. All these entities expect some sort of payment.
Works that are in copyright are to be exploited in accordance with the wishes of the rights owner. Works that are out of copyright can be made freely available via so many sources, Google being one option. Nothing in this deal precludes rights owners from giving their work away, and nothing in this precludes consumers from accessing this free content.
I love free as much as the next person, but only when that free is the choice of the person who owns the information.
bowerbird // Oct 30, 2008 at 10:27 am
kirk said:
> And now you’ll be able to read them
> at your local library without waiting for
> that interlibrary loan to come through.
you mean “at a designated terminal”?
yeah, right, if i want to stand in line
for 2 hours for my 15-minute slot…
if you really thought that was a valid point,
that was a really stupid thing for you to think.
> You’ll also have access to books that
> probably wouldn’t have been available
> through interlibrary transfer.
oh, i’m quite sure that _all_ the p-books
that might have been “available” before
will suddenly be “unavailable” now that
it is established i must pay for access…
> This agreement does nothing to transfer
> any rights that may have reverted back
> to the author. Authors can register their titles
> with the Registry of Books and collect royalties
> for any use. I don’t see any scenario
> where that’s a bad thing.
i’m glad authors will be getting paid.
if, that is, they really _will_ be paid.
we have yet to see that be actualized.
remember that musicians have always
“received royalties”, at least according
to their contracts, although many claim
that recording company accounting tricks
have robbed them of most or all royalties.
so i’ll believe author payment when i see it.
but even if that _does_ come true, it’s still
a possible boondoogle, depending on price,
because it is the result of a _monopoly_…
> Since you’ve brought up price again
well, i have indeed “brought up price again”,
because we’re being kept in the dark on that
one particular item. why do you think that is?
do you think it’s because money is unimportant
to google, or to the publishers? don’t act stupid.
the whole reason for this lawsuit was _money_.
so the parties to the lawsuit have found a way to
push the burden onto someone else — the public.
and they don’t even have the moral courage to
tell us exactly what the price is going to be…
> Remember, these are out-of-print books.
right. absolutely right. these are books that are
currently returning nothing, absolutely _nothing_,
to either the publishers or the authors, and google
has found a way to re-establish an income-stream
to them, with the money coming from the public.
how is it possible to see this as anything but a gouge?
perhaps you simply cannot visualize another route?
so let me carve one out for you.
because these books had used up their commercial
potential, they should have been set free, meaning
that scans could be viewed by the public for _free_.
you want hard-copy? fine, you have to pay for that.
maybe even have to pay a surcharge over actual cost,
with that extra money distributed back to the author.
but if you just want to _read_ the book, on-screen,
that’s free. that’s the route i would’ve liked to take.
i dunno, maybe you people work in the publishing biz,
and you’re glad to see money coming from anywhere.
but out here in the general public, all we see is that
somebody else is sticking their hand in our pocket…
> And out-of-print backlist is theoretically worth
> the least. These are books they couldn’t justify
> keeping in print because
> there was no way to make money from them.
until google saved your butt.
> A Specified Price and a Settlement Controlled Price.
thanks for the figures, but no thanks, because we know
these are accounting tricks designed to take our money.
> So, from the looks of it 51% of the books will be
> available for consumer purchase for $5.99 or less.
sounds like 49% of the books will cost $6.99 or more.
again, these are books that used up their commerciality.
their publishers made business decisions to shelve them.
and now they’re costing $6.99 _or_more_. amazing!
especially since most e-book buyers before the kindle
would’ve told you they are loathe to pay that much for
a _new_ book, one that is _currently_ a best-seller…
but now they’ve been priced, by a monopoly, at $6.99+.
of course, the other 51% of the books will be total crap,
not worth 10 cents, let alone various prices up to $5.99.
this is the kind of b.s. the r.i.a.a. has been trying to pull
for years and years, and all it has gotten them to date is
an adversarial relationship with their customers, who
now feel fully justified in outright piracy of the product,
and have absolutely no desire to support the dinosaurs.
the publishing industry is now following their stupidity.
except they aren’t just going to drive books underground,
they’re going to drive them _into_ the ground, because
people are just gonna _stop_reading_books_whatsoever_.
heck, they’ve _already_ stopped to a very large degree, and
now the greedy suits are going to kill books off completely.
the scary thing is that they might be doing it _on_purpose_,
because they don’t want the public to _read_, because they
don’t want to have to deal with an _educated_ citizenry…
it’s much easier to manipulate people who cheerfully think
whatever it is that the corporations tell them to think…
-bowerbird
bowerbird // Oct 30, 2008 at 10:33 am
> Libraries are not free —
> they are funded by taxpayers
i don’t have to pay any money
to check out a book and read it.
i’m _quite_ sure that you knew
that i meant _exactly_ that, so
i won’t be repeating it again…
-bowerbird
montaraz // Oct 30, 2008 at 11:17 am
Bowerbird, you seem a bit angry… there’s no need to express yourself so roughly, specially when people here are just expressing their opinion, just like you…
Kassia Krozser // Oct 30, 2008 at 11:40 am
First, if you pay taxes, you’re paying money into the system. You don’t pay to check the book out, but you pay to make the book available to check out. You are paying or your parents are paying or someone you know is paying. That’s how the (public) library system works. I, for one, happily pay these taxes because the good that comes from it is worth the price.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you don’t know anything about royalty accounting. Fun stuff. I’ve certainly done enough of it in my day. As noted in my post above, it appears that the music industry never really passed on settlements to musicians. Big surprise, but I’m not going to impute the same intentions to the settlement until there’s evidence of ill-intent.
The fact that the agreement clearly specifies pots of money for different parties indicates that there’s at least intent to compensate authors differently than publishers. It is now the job of these authors and their agents to make sure this aspect of the agreement is carried out.
You want all these books to be free — to you — without restrictions. That was never the intent of this settlement. That was, frankly, never the intent of the Google Book Search program. Just because some of these books have exhausted their commercial value from a mass market perspective, it being only recently that print-on-demand technology has made it possible for very small lot runs to be financially viable, it does not mean that they have lost all commercial value to the rights owner. While I have issues with the copyright law extensions, I do not quibble with the right of that copyright owner to make money from his or her product.
You don’t want to pay? That’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t mean that people who own this content have to give you their property for free. The settlement between content creators and Google is partially a financial settlement, designed to, as best as possible, compensate the widest group of people for the right to exploit their work. Pure and simple.
Is it perfect and is everyone happy? No. Could authors be bigger winners? Absolutely. Could they be bigger losers? Oh yes.
bowerbird // Oct 30, 2008 at 11:41 am
i’m not the least bit angry.
what made you think that?
are you angry yourself?
further, i don’t think i am
expressing myself “roughly”,
but then again, i’m not sure
exactly what that means…
-bowerbird
bowerbird // Oct 30, 2008 at 12:39 pm
kassia said:
> You don’t pay to check the book out
yes, that’s right. there is no charge at all.
that’s what “free” means to most people…
just like it’s “free” to drive down the road.
even though it costs money to make roads.
we know a toll-road is different — entirely.
what google has done is put up a toll-road.
> but you pay to make the book
> available to check out.
and this is exactly what i’m talking about:
tax-dollars should pay for cyberlibraries,
just like they pay for physical libraries,
the main difference being that the price
for cyberlibraries should reflect the _real_
price for e-books — i.e., be a _fair_ price —
and the variable price for e-books (as all
digital goods) is one that approaches zero.
if google’s price is one that approaches zero
as the number of units rise, i will be happy.
but i see no indication that that is the case.
which means that the authors/publishers
will be getting a steady income-stream that
vastly surpasses the investment they made,
which means _somebody_ is getting screwed,
and that “somebody” happens to be the public.
> You are paying or your parents are paying
> or someone you know is paying.
my parents are both dead. perhaps you are
thinking i must be a wet-behind-the-ears
youngster with all of my “radical” thinking.
but you would be wrong. i’m well over 40…
> That’s how the (public) library system works.
> I, for one, happily pay these taxes because
> the good that comes from it is worth the price.
and the same would be true of our cyberlibrary.
indeed, since the costs would be _much_ lower,
while the benefits would be roughly the same
(or perhaps even much greater, given the wider
distribution of e-books, and the multiplicative
power of our many-to-many connected tubes),
the investment would prove to be _much_ wiser.
so, will we let that route be thrown into the crapper,
so that google can collect money from the public to
make itself even more wealthy, and prop up the old
business models of the past that the publishers love?
if we do, we’ll be making a _huge_ mistake. huge.
> I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that
> you don’t know anything about royalty accounting.
it’s always a good debate strategy to presume that
your opponent doesn’t grok what he’s talking about.
it makes for a very respectful conversation, yes, sir.
> You want all these books to be free — to you —
> without restrictions.
not just to me. to _everyone_. i couldn’t care less.
the products of the publishing industry long ceased
to have much appeal to me… celebrity tell-alls? no.
diet books? no. cookbooks? no. get-rich quick? no.
bibles? no. some clones of last year’s best-seller? no.
romance novels? no. stephen king? no. harry p? no.
society is now a morass of self-centered greedy brats.
the corporations molded society into their own image.
(and no, i’m not “angry” about that. “it is what it is.”)
the thing is, i want free cyberlibraries precisely because
they happen to be an excellent investment in our future.
but the greedy brats want free books because… why not?
and they’ll get their free books, because digital products
are amazingly easy to copy. so books _will_ be pirated.
they are already being pirated. now. any book you want.
including those by pynchon. and rowling. heck, _sartre_.
any book you want. i can find it for you online. in a week.
> That was never the intent of this settlement. That was,
> frankly, never the intent of the Google Book Search program.
oh, good thing i never let google’s business cloud my vision,
which was formulated decades before there _was_ a google.
> You don’t want to pay? That’s your prerogative,
> but it doesn’t mean that people who own this content
> have to give you their property for free.
you are making a _fundamental_misunderstanding_
by assuming this is because _i_ just “don’t want to pay”.
i wouldn’t read the crap put out by the publishing industry
even if it _was_ free. i wouldn’t read it if they _paid_ me.
ever since i got this internet thingee, multi-way communication
is _much_ more compelling to me than the corporate soapbox.
i’m not interested in their brainwashing, thank you very mush.
and let me tell you, the days of corporate publishers are over.
it will take them some time to go through the death throes,
and they’ll keep their megaphones forever so as to blast us,
but the time where they controlled the conversation is gone.
because once the corporations can’t make any money off of it,
they will get out of publishing like rats deserting a sinking ship.
so whether i “don’t want to pay” is totally beside the question…
the question here is whether we are going to let greedy capitalists
prop up their old business models by taking away an incredible gift
that has been bestowed on us — the ability to make infinite copies…
if they are allowed to impose scarcity on us artificially, just so
they can continue to keep their money inside our wallets, then
we deserve the crap they are forcing down our throats…
-bowerbird
bowerbird // Oct 30, 2008 at 12:43 pm
i said:
> keep their money inside our wallets!
i meant:
> keep their _hands_ inside our wallets!
-bowerbird
bowerbird // Oct 31, 2008 at 8:32 am
yes!
even the harvard library director
— harvard! — has spoken out
about the problems with this deal:
> “The settlement provides
> no assurance that the
> prices charged for access
> will be reasonable,”
> he added, “especially since
> the subscription services
> will have no real competitors.”
yes! push back on a monopoly.
-bowerbird
Ted // Oct 31, 2008 at 10:34 am
If it cuts the monopoly of the large commercial publishers, I’m for it.
Mike Cane // Oct 31, 2008 at 11:48 am
The more I read and the more I think about this, the less and less and less I like it.
At least I’m not alone in seeing the terrible implications for writers:
http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/the-great-book-bank-robbery/
Kassia Krozser // Oct 31, 2008 at 5:45 pm
While this is far beyond my area of expertise, I’m not sure we can call this a monopoly. Around here, we’re speculating on the chances that Microsoft — who abandoned the game for reasons that are still a bit unclear — will get back in the book business (if they don’t, it’s likely only because they’ve finally ceded search).
Mike — as you know (I hope!), I’ve written extensively on the subject of rights reversion etc, and will likely be doing so again if the gods favor quiet writing time this weekend. From my perspective, owning all your rights is the most important thing an author can do. Unlike some others, I am of the firm belief that authors should license their work for specific periods of time, with options on both sides to re-up at the end of that period.
This gives authors, particularly, the opportunity to react to this ever-changing market, and, frankly, forces the publishers to be more competitive when it comes to distributing books. This will require a sea change in how deals are negotiated, but blaming this and that on Google is missing the key point (I’m not saying *you* are, btw). Except for those instances where work is licensed specifically by the author to Google, all monies continue to flow through the publisher.
I am hot on this topic this week because Random House, not for the first time, is messing with contractual royalties for ebooks, this time going far lower than even my cynical mind can imagine. On the flip side, you have major authors cutting deals with Rosetta Stone because RS offers a better deal.
Oops, there’s a good portion of the post written already!
montaraz // Nov 1, 2008 at 4:20 am
Bowerbird, not in the least angry. Excuse my English, I meant expressing yourself crudely, but obviously, I was wrong.
Really interesting stuff, Kassia & co.! As always.
Author Lofts and Pyramids of Value « Future Perfect Publishing // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:02 pm
[…] for broader and more flexible sampling tools – e.g. Google Book Search. Google has settled the lawsuit with the AAP and the Authors Guild, opening the door to wider access to the content of books. Despite the fears of the publishing […]