NEXT week details of a plan that could shape the future of books and publishing in the digital age will be spelled out in a New York courtroom. The plan is complex but, in a nutshell, search engine giant Google intends to scan and make available perhaps a million or more books that are out of print but still in copyright.
Google has the support of the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, but it faces formidable opposition. Some 400 legal objections have been filed, and the US Department of Justice has serious concerns. The dispute was due to be resolved in court next week, but at the last minute Google and its partners asked for the case to be adjourned so they could make revisions. A hearing will still take place, but only to inform the parties concerned how Google intends to proceed.
The case is the culmination of a process that got under way several years ago when Google began scanning books in research libraries to create a searchable archive. Libraries liked it; they saw it as a way to improve access, particularly to rarely used books. But authors and publishers did not. In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed a suit to block the scanning of copyrighted books.
Last year Google hammered out a deal with the authors and publishers which, at first sight, appeared to please everyone. Under the Google Book Settlement, the company would be allowed to scan out-of-print books still in copyright unless expressly asked not to by the copyright holder. That would greatly expand a treasure trove of information available to the serious researcher or the merely curious. Where else could I have learned that my great-great-grandfather was chief car builder for a small 19th-century railroad? Google also promised to supply every library in the US with a terminal for free public access, supported by advertising revenue.
Google also promised to come up with $125 million, partly to pay authors and publishers whose books it had scanned without permission before the settlement. On top of that, authors and publishers would receive 63 per cent of the income from the project.
Nobody would get rich, but authors would earn some money and their books would remain available indefinitely - an important concern for many. The deal would also make available "orphan works", books that are still in copyright but whose authors (or their heirs) can't be located.
Done deal? Far from it. The settlement - around 300 pages of mind-numbing legal jargon - was received with howls of protest. The justice department warned that the proposed settlement violated competition and copyright laws. Numerous groups filed objections, including the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Archive, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Amazon, Microsoft and the German government.
The objections cover a range of issues. Would Google gain a monopoly on copyrighted books that would make it the sole gatekeeper to a large body of knowledge? Could the deal limit authors' rights to control their own works? Would there be any protection for non-US authors? Why should authors be forced to go to the trouble of telling Google if they do not want their works to be copied, and why should Google be absolved from identifying copyright owners? Why should the Authors Guild be considered to speak for all authors? Why should Google alone be given the right to use orphan works? The list could go on for pages. The whole thing is reminiscent of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the interminable legal proceedings in Charles Dickens's novel Bleak House.
Perhaps the biggest concern is that the settlement in effect rewrites US copyright law - usurping the role that rightfully belongs to Congress. It would let Google keep on scanning while absolving it of liability should it fail to identify copyright owners or obtain their consent.
The plan in effect rewrites US copyright law, usurping a role that ought to belong to Congress
There are practical issues, too. Google has already bungled the job of compiling a list of every book published in the US since 1923, and thus still under US copyright. By including every record it could find, it managed to collect every data entry error made over the past 86 years.
I write technical books and short fiction in addition to magazine articles. Searching under my name, I have found a book never published and a bogus co-author, as well as editions never available in the US. Worse, Google keeps adding new entries, which authors must go through. While writing this piece, I found more than 20 new entries about me. I haven't written that many books.
It's not just me. I also found a listing for the 1924 master's thesis of a great-aunt who died long before my birth, plucked by Google from a library database. There's no evidence it was published, or that she registered the copyright. If Google can list that as an out-of-print but still in-copyright book then god only knows what else is in there.
Google has the support of the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, but it faces formidable opposition. Some 400 legal objections have been filed, and the US Department of Justice has serious concerns. The dispute was due to be resolved in court next week, but at the last minute Google and its partners asked for the case to be adjourned so they could make revisions. A hearing will still take place, but only to inform the parties concerned how Google intends to proceed.
The case is the culmination of a process that got under way several years ago when Google began scanning books in research libraries to create a searchable archive. Libraries liked it; they saw it as a way to improve access, particularly to rarely used books. But authors and publishers did not. In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed a suit to block the scanning of copyrighted books.
Last year Google hammered out a deal with the authors and publishers which, at first sight, appeared to please everyone. Under the Google Book Settlement, the company would be allowed to scan out-of-print books still in copyright unless expressly asked not to by the copyright holder. That would greatly expand a treasure trove of information available to the serious researcher or the merely curious. Where else could I have learned that my great-great-grandfather was chief car builder for a small 19th-century railroad? Google also promised to supply every library in the US with a terminal for free public access, supported by advertising revenue.
Google also promised to come up with $125 million, partly to pay authors and publishers whose books it had scanned without permission before the settlement. On top of that, authors and publishers would receive 63 per cent of the income from the project.
Nobody would get rich, but authors would earn some money and their books would remain available indefinitely - an important concern for many. The deal would also make available "orphan works", books that are still in copyright but whose authors (or their heirs) can't be located.
Done deal? Far from it. The settlement - around 300 pages of mind-numbing legal jargon - was received with howls of protest. The justice department warned that the proposed settlement violated competition and copyright laws. Numerous groups filed objections, including the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Archive, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Amazon, Microsoft and the German government.
The objections cover a range of issues. Would Google gain a monopoly on copyrighted books that would make it the sole gatekeeper to a large body of knowledge? Could the deal limit authors' rights to control their own works? Would there be any protection for non-US authors? Why should authors be forced to go to the trouble of telling Google if they do not want their works to be copied, and why should Google be absolved from identifying copyright owners? Why should the Authors Guild be considered to speak for all authors? Why should Google alone be given the right to use orphan works? The list could go on for pages. The whole thing is reminiscent of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the interminable legal proceedings in Charles Dickens's novel Bleak House.
Perhaps the biggest concern is that the settlement in effect rewrites US copyright law - usurping the role that rightfully belongs to Congress. It would let Google keep on scanning while absolving it of liability should it fail to identify copyright owners or obtain their consent.
The plan in effect rewrites US copyright law, usurping a role that ought to belong to Congress
There are practical issues, too. Google has already bungled the job of compiling a list of every book published in the US since 1923, and thus still under US copyright. By including every record it could find, it managed to collect every data entry error made over the past 86 years.
I write technical books and short fiction in addition to magazine articles. Searching under my name, I have found a book never published and a bogus co-author, as well as editions never available in the US. Worse, Google keeps adding new entries, which authors must go through. While writing this piece, I found more than 20 new entries about me. I haven't written that many books.
It's not just me. I also found a listing for the 1924 master's thesis of a great-aunt who died long before my birth, plucked by Google from a library database. There's no evidence it was published, or that she registered the copyright. If Google can list that as an out-of-print but still in-copyright book then god only knows what else is in there.
0 comments:
Post a Comment