91Èȱ¬

The days where one simply sits, manually turning the page, that wonderful feeling of paper on skin, while being totally immersed in a blooming good BOOK, are seemingly numbered. How sad.

Let me understand this:

A company does a deal in the US with the relevant copyright royalty collection agency about copyright material under which it pays an agreed, but low, royalty in order to allow internet access. In this case for stuff which is difficult to get hold of and is not in print in the US. The copyright owners have no say in the matter (oops they can opt out, but it is not as though the US company will chase the owner for the opt out).

A company in Russia does a deal with its copyright royalty collection agency under which it pays an agreed but low royalty in order to allow internet access to the material. The copyright owners get no say in the matter.

Of course the first one is books and Google so it is a good thing and the second is music and the Russian MP3 website and so is a bad thing.

Total hypocracy.

Whether or not the book is in print, if it is still in copyright, then if google want to publish it and, make money out of it, they need to do a deal with the copyright owner on a case by case basis. Anything else is nothing more than the US legalising copyright theft

So what youre saying is...

Google was full of ...(dont want moderators being offended)

Does this mean Google was lying? Trying to get publicity from doing nothing (i.e. Amazon had already cornered this market?)

I ..don't understand (obviously)

Furthermore, this service, whatever it is, is only available to US residents!

So basically, no single license-fee payer (terminology that seems to escape these bloggers), living and working in the UK, can actually appreciate this service legally!

What a shame. This article reminds me of Maggie's work, really.

Anything else is nothing more than the US legalising copyright theft

States, including the US, grant authors a copyright for a specific purpose - to encourage them to make works available to the public. If authors abuse that right to make things unavailable, then they deserve to lose it.

Hi, nice article and a good review. I do however feel it has missed one of the main problems with Google books that many were complaining about. That is the notable omission of any mention of 'orphaned works' whereby the copyright holder cannot be found or identified. In the old agreement these would, in essence have become property of Google. I presume this isn't the case in the new agreement but could you please clarify? Thanks

• But books by UK, Australian and Canadian authors held in US libraries will be part of the programme, unless the authors or publishers opt out.

• Google users outside the United States will not have access to the service.

Oh yes, I'm thrilled about this. And apparantly UK authors are a-okay with the whole deal? I wonder who they've been asking.

I don't mind the out of copyright books and orphaned works going online, but I do object to the fact Google can make money out of orphaned works from this. Just because no one knows who the copyright holder is doesn't mean they don't exist, and they don't have rights. What happens if someone recognises grandaddy's name on a Google book and comes forward? Do they get the rights back? Can they still opt out?

Imagine if a private company got to profit from everyone who died in testate, rather than it going to the state. A lot of people would argue the state shouldn't get it, but would they really rather Google did?

What gets me most is it's opt out. You have to tell Google you don't want to be part of it. Your publishers have to tell Google. Otherwise, Google will assume you do (and there was a deadline for opting out originally - is there going to be another, or did we all miss the boat?). You had to opt in just to tell Google that you wanted a say in how your books were archived - just the details, the cover, a sample or the whole darned thing. You actually had less rights opting out, and left yourself more open to having your books abused.

(and Amazon's market share corresponds to books currently for sale, not orphaned books. Most of them are still in copyright. It's more comparable to the Gutenberg project, but Google wouldn't look like such an underdog then, not considering the considerable library of our of print books they already have online)

Well , I must say I respect all the writers & publishers about their concern over Google effort to develop the platform for books which are out-of-print. I think instead of pointing fingers towards each other we should appericate the effort which has been made by Google to bring such digital books. Because it feels like in the near future, reading a paper book will be a fashion rather than a trend. I think Google should try to approach to third world countries where the books go out-of-print a lot quicker than developed countries where people can continously print the same version of the book. I'm sure there a lot of countries which will come on-board with google if the international effort is made. It will benefit the readers may be not in my generation but years after you will be remembered for this effort. I do agree Google could lead us by example & rest may follow. But knowledge shouldn't be a property it should be shared globally so the effort should be made that people around the globe should benefit from this effort. I want to ask ruling by EU, that it shouldn't be available here it should be only available to readers in US. Well that means you are pushing yourself away from trends of future. Likewise, after WWII Japanese came up with policy of management, which was denied at the time by US but Japanese fought by into global market through that. Seems like Europe is denying an option forward like US denied after post-war. Well which is not good news for any readers in EU, but I must say either EU should join hands with Google or come up with something which can give something to us as reader.

The GBS is a disaster for Non-US/UK/AU scientists. scientists are a small subcommunity of authors, who want to be read, who are paid to be read (their scientific publications), and the easy access promotes the progress of science.
Thus to exclude the non-anglo-saxon authors is a disaster for them and by being less informed on the non-A-S literature also for the A-S scientists.
What is needed for this subset of authors is a settlement with Google such that Google should have the non-exclusive right to scan in scientific content books from anywhere and post it free of charge (zero page charge) to the reader. This is also called Open Access. Google should be free to make some money (e.g.to pay the scanning, to have a motive) by advertisement on the side of the screen.
This is the general strategy of the Action Committee for Copyright for Science and Academic Learning [].
What this clientel need is: an opt-in channel, not an opt-out channel.