Federal judge rejects Google book monopoly

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."

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.

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.

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).

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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.