Long Awaited Google Settlement On Hold
In 2005 the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers sued Google for scanning books without the copyright holders' permission. A settlement was negotiated and, as most people know, the terms were announced last October. The settlement would have allowed Google to set up a database from which customers could purchase books, photographs, portions fo books, etc., and the copyright holder would receive payment from revenues received by Google. Now the court has received more than 400 filings objecting to various parts of the settlement agreement, and the hearing on the settlement that was scheduled for October 7, 2009, has been indefinitely delayed. Interestingly Google did not object.
The delay will give the parties time to work out all the differences and see if they can agree to a new settlement. I think this is a very good development and is in the best interests of authors. While I think the settlement as it was proposed would have offered many benefits to readers and to authors and publishers, most notably that many out-of-print books would become available again for distribution, I think it also could create a monopoly in which Google would have controlled almost everything published. The settlement would have given Google too much power, and, in the long run, could serve to limit access and to stilt the development of competing technologies for delivering reading materials and for consuming information. If the vast majority of copyrighted, both in print and out of print, books and other materials as well as materials no longer in copyright are available through Google, the formats, readers, and other delivery systems Google chooses to support will have a clear advantage over all other competitors.
Perhaps the answer, in part, may be to require Google to offer the information stored in their database in all the formats used by the various popular reading devices, phones, and computers so that Google does not act as the gatekeeper to the publishing industry. It will be interesting to see how all the objections are addressed and whether a new settlement can be reached within a reasonable amount of time.
The delay will give the parties time to work out all the differences and see if they can agree to a new settlement. I think this is a very good development and is in the best interests of authors. While I think the settlement as it was proposed would have offered many benefits to readers and to authors and publishers, most notably that many out-of-print books would become available again for distribution, I think it also could create a monopoly in which Google would have controlled almost everything published. The settlement would have given Google too much power, and, in the long run, could serve to limit access and to stilt the development of competing technologies for delivering reading materials and for consuming information. If the vast majority of copyrighted, both in print and out of print, books and other materials as well as materials no longer in copyright are available through Google, the formats, readers, and other delivery systems Google chooses to support will have a clear advantage over all other competitors.
Perhaps the answer, in part, may be to require Google to offer the information stored in their database in all the formats used by the various popular reading devices, phones, and computers so that Google does not act as the gatekeeper to the publishing industry. It will be interesting to see how all the objections are addressed and whether a new settlement can be reached within a reasonable amount of time.
Posted by Elizabeth House at 9/30/2009 4:18 PM 
Categories: Self-Publishing,Book Publishing Industry,Book Promotion
Categories: Self-Publishing,Book Publishing Industry,Book Promotion
keeping in mind that I still have yet to read the original documents on this, I think that with very strict boundaries, it could be beneficial. i mean, though, very strict boundaries. I had read one book that says the law already exists, -- as long as the author receives royalties. not fair though, to new writers who don't know yet how to secure themselves as registered writers, and to the publishers, if the royalties will not be demanding enough to call it a fair business conduction. Above all, i find it unethical, and exploiting to integrity of writers, and to publishers as well as the whole industry in relation, including artists, editors, printers, etc. the list goes on, like a huge superstore, who even with good intentions, nevertheless monopolizes, and ends with the result of pushing everyone else out of the picture. My final conclusion, both as a reader and a writer, please, don't do it-- at all. It's a circle of circumstance, that will inevitably end up hurting their own profit margins too, i think, just as soon as the next guy buys them out. i truly believe, it's just no good, and i personally, don't need to be using google, until i know they won't be doing this. there are alot of competitors in the marketplace that i don't need google. thanks so much, for this update.
Reply to this