[gui-talk] The Google book scan processbok

[Joel Deutsch]

I've been reading the enthusiastic comments here on the list applauding 
Google for its plans to scan all the printed books it is able to and post 
them available for public access. As someone who had access to print until 
my vision deteriorated too badly from retinal degeneration to enable me to 
read print anymore, and who dearly appreciates every adaptive advantage of 
our time from NLS books to Internet access and everything else, I can easily 
sympathize. But as a lifelong avid reader and also a professional writer, 
concerns about matters of copyright and payment assail me. So until I'm 
reassured by further news on this issue that Google isn't simply going to 
rip off everybody who wrote or published anything it gets its powerful 
golden claws on, I'll reserve my judgment as to whether or not I feel the 
plan is the beneficial advance Google maintains it to be.

for those who know already from elsewhere, or will carefully read the new 
York times article I'll paste in below, that Google has asserted that it 
will be fair in its dealings, that authors can withdraw permission for 
Google to republish their work (the infamous "opt out" idea that few of us 
would accept happily in most situations), and so forth, I have to say let's 
just see what happens. And I, like a lot of others contemplating this whole 
digital horizon and the steady breakdown of conventional publishing, also 
believe that not only publishing but also copyright law may have to do some 
evolving and find new models, as they say these days. New plans. new 
arrangements. New rules.

Anyway, I can't unreservedly say "go Google" just because I'm so-called 
"print impaired" and this sounds as if it'll put everything online for me so 
that Jaws can read it. I don't think it's likely to be quite that simple, 
anyway. But that's off point.

Reservations I've got. Ambivalence I've got. Blind issues aren't my only 
identification. Just speaking for myself. Here's the article, for those who 
have only seen the press release from the NFB that was posted here recently. 
it's a more complicated issue than that press release suggested.
Joel



September 11, 2009
Copyright Office Assails Google's Settlement on Digital Books
By MIGUEL HELFT
SAN FRANCISCO - The nation's top copyright official made a blistering attack 
Thursday on a controversial legal settlement that would let Google create a 
huge online library and bookstore.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Marybeth Peters, the United 
States register of copyrights, said the settlement between Google and groups 
representing authors and publishers amounted to an end-run around copyright 
law that would wrest control of books from authors and other right holders.

Ms. Peters, the first government official to address the settlement in 
detail, said it would allow Google to profit from the work of others without 
prior consent and that it could put "diplomatic stress" on the United States 
because it affected foreign authors whose rights are protected by 
international treaties.

But David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, who also testified at the 
hearing, defended the agreement saying it let authors retain control of 
their books and would expand access to millions of out-of-print books that 
are largely hidden in libraries.

In a concession that appears intended to allay complaints that the 
class-action settlement would grant Google quasi-exclusive rights to profit 
from millions of books, Mr. Drummond said that Google would allow rivals 
like Amazon or Barnes & Noble to sell online digital copies of out-of-print 
books that Google has scanned from libraries.

The $125 million settlement, which is subject to court approval, would 
resolve suits filed in 2005 by the Authors Guild and the Association of 
American Publishers against Google over its plan to digitize millions of 
books from libraries without approval from copyright holders.

The settlement would protect Google from liability and would establish a 
registry administered by authors and publishers. In concert with Google, the 
registry would sell access to those books to individuals and libraries. The 
revenue would be split among Google, authors and publishers.

Ms. Peters said that in granting something like a "compulsory license," a 
requirement that rights owners license works to others, the settlement 
essentially usurped the authority of Congress and skirted deliberations.

"In essence, the proposed settlement would give Google a license to infringe 
first and ask questions later, under the imprimatur of the court," Ms. 
Peters wrote in her prepared testimony.

Her opinion is important because it could be reflected in a brief expected 
from the Justice Department this month.

The department's antitrust division is investigating the deal for its effect 
on competition. The department has also been asked by other government 
agencies, including the Copyright Office, to represent their views in court, 
people with knowledge of those requests said. The government has until Sept. 
18 to make a filing in the case, which is being reviewed by Judge Denny Chin 
of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Drummond said that he found the objections of the Copyright Office 
unfounded.

"We think the settlement is legal, and we think it is structured well within 
the guidelines of what you can do in a class action settlement," he said. 
"It certainly it is not usurping Congress's authority to do whatever it 
wants."

And he said that it was inappropriate to call the agreement a "compulsory 
license," because authors can ask Google at any time to remove their books 
from the database.

Some members of the Judiciary Committee also were skeptical of Ms. Peters's 
arguments and appeared to side with Google.

"At any time you can order Google to remove your material and tell them not 
to sell it," Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, said in an interview. "All 
of the rights are in the hands of the rights holders."

Mr. Drummond testified that to ensure that the market for digital books 
remained competitive, Google would let other retailers sell access to 
out-of-print books that it scanned from libraries. In doing so, Google is 
trying to address concerns that it alone would have the license to profit 
from out-of-print books, called orphan works, whose authors are unknown or 
cannot be found.

Under the program, Google should give most of its revenue to the affiliated 
retailer, keeping only a small slice of it, he said.

"If people really want to get access to orphan books that we have, they can 
do it," he said. He also said that Google was thinking about how to make 
those books available to others in bulk, in case any were interested in 
selling subscriptions to libraries.



Home
  a.. World
  b.. U.S.
  c.. N.Y. / Region
  d.. Business
  e.. Technology
  f.. Science
  g.. Health
  h.. Sports
  i.. Opinion
  j.. Arts
  k.. Style
  l.. Travel
  m.. Jobs
  n.. Real Estate
  o.. Automobiles
  p.. Back to Top
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
  a.. Privacy Policy
  b.. Terms of Service
  c.. Search
  d.. Corrections
  e.. RSS
  f.. First Look
  g.. Help
  h.. Contact Us
  i.. Work for Us
  j.. Site Map


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nytlogo153x23.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1877 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20090911/6f75a3e9/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 6185c7feQ2F0zQ5CQ2FQ3CpQ7EQ7BaQ5BQ5BQ3CJJ1Q3CpQ5B1Q5CppQ7BuQ2F
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20090911/6f75a3e9/attachment.obj>