Comments on: Thursday Midday Links: Is Google Book Settlement Dead?

By: Castiron

Castiron — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:52:26 +0000

@Nadia: Makes absolute sense!

By: Shiloh Walker

Shiloh Walker — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:39:50 +0000

Man, I hope the GBS is dead. Dead in the water. Hope. Hope. Hope. I’m so fed-uip with that lousy deal, it’s not even funny.

By: Nadia

Nadia — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:19:14 +0000

@Castiron: I wish they’d fought it out as well. So we’ll have some definite rulings on it.

The more I read about the GBS, the more I feel nervous. It’s not even about making things easy to research or giving access to scholars. It’s about profiting w/o compensating the people who created the actual contents by circumventing the current law, which says you can’t do that w/o permission.

And who’s to say that Google will stop w/ just text?

P.S. For the record, I’m much more sympathetic toward research / univ libraries than Google. But still it’s not my place to tell other writers how they should license their work, which is what the AG is doing. Does that make sense? :)

By: RStewie

RStewie — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:09:48 +0000

Sounds like you might get that wish, Nadia. That’s some strong language in her testimony, and it really clarifies some of the issues to the point of making them sound absurd.

By: Castiron

Castiron — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:02:08 +0000

@Nadia: Well, if we’re techinical, tracking down the copyright is also the problem of the libraries at the University of Michigan, Harvard University, Columbia University, Cornell University, the University of Texas at Austin, Princeton University, Stanford University, the University of Virginia, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and the University of California, among others; these are the institutions that partnered with Google in the scanning project.

But do you really think these libraries should have permission from the authors if they want to be able to do a text search of the books held in their collection?

Because that’s how this all started several years ago, with Google scanning their collections so the library patrons could search the collection better. Mind you, I’m sure that when Google started the project they hoped they’d be able to use the scans for profit later, but the libraries were certainly only interested in making it easier for people to find the books they needed and didn’t know existed. Alas, we’re not going to get a legal ruling on whether scanning for that purpose is actually fair use, because the AG and Google agreed to settle rather than continue the case.

Disclaimer: Employee of a university press; do not speak for my employer; dubious about many aspects of the settlement and kinda wish that the original lawsuit had continued to an actual ruling instead, but hoping that if the settlement passes that Congress will get off its butt about orphan works

By: Nadia

Nadia — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:11:59 +0000

I kinda hope the Google BS gets killed. Google has no right to scan written materials just because it feels like it should without an explicit written permission from copyright holders, etc. If it’s too expensive to track down individual copyright holders…well, that’s Google’s problem, isn’t it? If they want it that bad, they can spend the money on doing the right thing.

P.S. I don’t appreciate being forced into deciding on what to do about the Google BS because some dudes from the Authors Guild thought it was a good idea. I’m not a member. I don’t want the Authors Guild to speak for me or make business & career decisions on my behalf.