"Don't Be Evil" - FAIL

[mckitterick]

Just in case you haven't been following the Google Books Rights Grab (aka, "Google Books settlement"), Google has been pirating everyone's books and posting them to the internet for full-text search. Unless the author or publisher complains, people can also read the full text of books. And Google plans to publish these stolen works in other ways, too. Rainbows End, anyone?

No, seriously. If this doesn't infuriate you, you're not someone who creates stuff for a living - or for love - because this is, in essence, a giant corporation just off-handedly stealing copyrighted work and re-publishing it without consent. And the Author's Guild (representing a tiny fraction of all authors) is Google's little buddy in all this.

Here's where you go to opt out or in. That wasn't a typo: Every author needs to opt in to the settlement Google is offering for stealing your work... or opt out, also known as saying, "Don't steal my work." But be aware that opting out means you're not protected by the court ruling, either, and will need to police Google all on your own.

Run a Google search to learn more... though the top hits all point to Google's site. Hm, odd.... Or read the saga from Jay Lake's pov: His most recent LJ post, the original Jay Lake.com post, and the latest update on WIRED.

Oh, sure, you can complain about it and even get a $60 "We're sorry that you don't want us to steal your work" payment from them, but... um, what?

Remember Google's founding credo? Don't be evil.

FAIL.

Chris

Comments

[robinbailey.livejournal.com]

There were two interesting developments on this matter today. First, a federal judge ordered a four-month extension on Google's previously announced deadline of May 5th for making claims. Then, later in the day, there was news about a potential congressional investigation into the entire google books matter for possible anti-trust violations. This house of cards may yet come tumbling down.

Best,
Robinh

[jaylake.livejournal.com]

We can only fricking hope.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

It's what SF authors do best! Sometimes. Some of 'em ;-)

Hey, thanks so much for your ongoing coverage of this issue.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Both of these things make me very happy.

[kansas-dave.livejournal.com]

I don't quite get what's happening. Is Google making copyrighted books available for free downloads? Are they just making the texts searchable? Do they show more than the word count usually allowed without permission when quoting from copyrighted texts?

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

No one really does, that's the problem! They're scanning entire books and have been for a while, then putting the contents online for full-text search. When you search Google Books (I love how they brand 'em as theirs), you can read the text in context with the search results... and often the entire books, unless the author or publisher complained. Which is what started the lawsuits. Because that's stealing. And it's insulting to force victims to have to "opt out" of theft.

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

You can search the entire text, but they only display small snippets of text, unless there's a previous agreement with the publisher that allows the entire book to be displayed. They also put links to places where you can buy the books. You can only download books that are out of copyright, and that part isn't likely to change at all.

The deal they're proposing is that they'll share future advertising revenue (which they don't currently generate from Book Search, afaik) in exchange for making the full text available online for out of print books. You can also specify that none of the text or only small portions are available if you so choose.

Edit: Also they're talking about selling full access to the book and giving you a portion of the sale. My memory was faulty on that bit.

[sf-reader.livejournal.com]

After reading extensive discussion in the SFWA Lunge at SFF.net it appears that the best thing to do to retain control of your work is to opt in and then instruct Google to exclude or not display your books.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Geez.

[sf-reader.livejournal.com]

If you are so inclined, instructions for claiming works are available in the private password protected area of the SFWA website: http://www.sfwa.org/private/claim_instructions.pdf

[fortyozspartan.livejournal.com]

If this doesn't infuriate you, you're not someone who creates stuff for a living - or for love

Well, you have me there. I had to sign over all my creative products to The Company when I got hired.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Yoiks! Aroo?

[chernobylred.livejournal.com]

I suppose we can thank them for being a great object lesson. We don't usually see such blatant examples of "Power Corrupts."

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's... something.

[chernobylred.livejournal.com]

You know how I always look for the silver lining.

[normalcyispasse.livejournal.com]

Jesus tits, that IS evil.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Oh, I expect this will eventually end up having a decent conclusion. After a few hundred million dollars of legal costs. And after most of the authors involved have died of old age. And after Google has already made millions from related ad revenue and sale of stolen property.

[siro-gravity.livejournal.com]

to me, this is complicated.

first of all, the link to amazon & "rainbow's end" ...there are only 24 pages of that novel published at that site. how is this objectionable? when i am perched to spend my hard earned money on a heap of books, i look at them before buying. i open, look at the table of contents, and then READ IT, in several places to see if i'd like to buy it. if amazon did NOT publish snippets on its website, i would never buy from them. that is a loss of sales for everybody.

k, then i went to the googlebooks site, and clicked on the first book that came up -an over-700 page tome of which over 350 pages were published. my first feeling was, "YIKES -that is too much!!!" that is giving away a book...

but wait!
how is is different from any other unpaid acquisition? (besides the fact that it is so very mass-oriented?) my shelves are also full of free paper books. things people gave to me, or that i picked up at used book stores and garage sales. (k, i have to admit this sounds silly as i re-read it) but, then...what about libraries? which purchase a number of copies so that entire cities of people don't have to buy them? and yet...people still do buy books!

the internet it makes information public...puts info in the hands of people who can't afford to buy it.

it is also a form of free advertising, as there is not a soul in the world who has a few extra bucks, who is going to read a 700+ page book on line, and it is cheaper to buy one than print it out on your printer.

so...besides the fact that we are offended that a mega-giant like google has simply taken these things without asking, what is the problem? is it the asking itself that matters? then here is another question: if google announced that it was going to have a public online library, and if people wanted to include their book they could apply...don't ya think everyone in the universe would want their book put in such a library? it is free mass advertising. isn't it?

these isues also exist in the other arts, in music and the visual arts, too. i once put a youtube up privately at my journal of jeff buckley, it was a raw kind of jam-session, and later discovered that the content had been removed by ___________.(i think it was warner bros., but not sure.) how offensive is THAT?? i have bought every one of that dude's cds. and in fact things like youtube & google make a world of INFORMATION available to regular slobs like me, who don't have time for irl hunting.

and often, i buy things because i have seen them here, on line. in fact, most of my shopping takes place here.

ok, now that i've said these things, i also have to say that i find my images up all over the place, even here at lj (used as icons). the other day i followed a link from my statcounter that took me to a site that has published nearly everything from my website that i have posted about dammasch state hospital. and my feelings have been mixed about it. the person (not a giant corporation) has also linked to my site in numerous places...so, that's a good thing, right?

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

The Rainbows End reference was for Vinge's idea of the future of books and libraries, not what Amazon is doing. Amazon is pretty good actually, because they have to request to post. However, if Google gets its way, Amazon might use that as a precedent to just start stealing books, too.

[siro-gravity.livejournal.com]

see icon.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

;-)

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Next, about libraries and free online advertising. Yes, I agree that the internet provides an awesome opportunity for promotion. But what Google has done and is doing is:

1) illegal (pirating, then setting up a business plan to profit from that theft)
2) inappropriate (not asking permission for rights to publish)
3) scary (sets a precedent, they're too rich to fight effectively, etc.)

If they had instead put up a site where authors, publishers, and other copyright-holders could have opted in to a sort of free "online library," I bet thousands would have jumped on board, especially if they had shared ad and other revenues. But they didn't. And it's not a library.

A library is a not-for-profit public service that lends books one at a time to members. Getting your book into a library pretty much guarantees the book's success because they have to buy copies. Same goes for individuals sharing books - there's still a sale in there.

Bad-case scenario: Google could borrow a single copy from a library or from an employee's bookshelf, scan it, post it to their website, and suddenly no one would need to visit a library again. Heck, they could even return it to the bookstore after scanning it! So libraries and bookstores would stop buying books from those authors whose books aren't getting checked out or sold, while Google's coffers grow... from their initial theft.

Sure, some people will end up buying the books they find via Google Book search, but that's not the point. The point is that they stole content, shared stolen content, and are profiting from it. And they expect the legal rights-holders to have to jump through hoops in order to stop being robbed.

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

I think you're being alarmist and that's not what's going down here. I think they could have and should have asked for this settlement before they started scanning. True. Or they should have gone with copyright free books and then expanded from there. However, they do all sorts of things currently to encourage sales and physical book readership:



And as it stands, you're getting squat from out of print books. With the agreement, you'd potentially still make money from books that were out of print.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

This sounds a little like justifying thievery....

And I guarantee you that they're taking a referral cut if someone buys a book via those links.

And my understanding is that they default to putting up whole books, only revert to snippets when the owner complains about the theft.

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

Yes. They're not going to set up a deal like that without making some money from it. It's outlined in the settlement. I opted in, btw, just to clarify that I am a person "who creates stuff for a living - or for love."

They don't default to whole books. They default to tiny snippets unless they've negotiated with the publisher. I think if the publisher complains they change it to no preview at all.

I'm not sure what the settlement would default to. Edit: settlement defaults to full text for orphan books only. Books in print would remain unchanged. Currently orphan books are not displayed at all.

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

And I think the bigger beef is also with the guild negotiating settlements without the input of its membership, isn't it?

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

That's the smaller beef, yes - why they didn't just go for prosecution for theft is beyond me.

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

Because it's legally ambiguous. Google probably has a decent shot at being able to claim their efforts are fair use. They're currently not selling ads on book results. They only use small snippets unless they've got permission otherwise, and they put tons of links to places to legally obtain the full text. So they could argue that it's brief, educational in nature, net effect is positive for publishers, etc.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

I find it fascinating to watch creators of stuff defend theft. And the reason they'll get away with this is that they have more money to outlast writers in the legal proceedings.

If I give my writing away (which I plan to do with the electronic version of my novel and do for my poems), I want to choose how that happens. I doubt Scalzi would have sold those books electronically if Google had stolen 'em rather than he had been giving them away.

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

I find it fascinating to watch creators of stuff overreact to a pending legal settlement they don't fully understand. :-P~~ I'll admit I don't fully understand it either, but what I do see doesn't have me breathing fire or assuming that this is a world-ending precedent.

Looking over the settlement again (since it's been months since I signed on) I see the following key points:

If you opt in, you get the $60 as your settlement for them scanning your book without asking before May 5th. You can also register an objection to the settlement. That means you still get the $60, but you can tell the court you don't like a particular aspect of the agreement.

If you opt out, you can sue them. You may not win (yes, the wads of cash advantage) but you just might win some cash in settlement. Usually lawyers in civil suits just take a portion of your winnings, right?

If you do nothing, you're part of the settlement, but they're not paying you $60. (This is standard for class actions, from what I gather, so it's not Google being evil.)

You can claim books at any point in time, whether you opt in or out of the settlement.

The $60 does not give Google the right to make money off your work forever and ever and not pay you. It's just the past settlement. Google will share 63% of revenues with rights holders. I don't know if that's a good or bad percentage as far as it goes, but they are doing all the work scanning and writing the code to make it searchable.

This does not preclude you from making some other agreement with Google through their "Partner Program."

If your book is an out of print book, it will default to fully available text, but you can turn it off if you've registered your work. This is the big change from the pre-settlement days, and apparently the area of controversy. Currently none of the texts of orphan books are being displayed at all.

In addition, they're establishing a rights management group to try and contact and pay rights holders who have orphaned books.

So, in short, they're not stealing Scalzi's work or yours. They probably should have gone with opt in for orphan works, I agree. But their intent isn't to take without paying.

[siro-gravity.livejournal.com]

thank you for explaining all of this. and i just have to bow down and confess ignorance.

i think this is confusing to outsiders like me because the process by which google stands to makes money from this is not readily obvious from their site.

but i agree that if they are raking in money from stolen work, that is wrong, and that the artists should not be the ones having to jump through hoops to protect their already-copyrighted work.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

...and the fact that they unilaterally decided that pirating was okay. I bet most authors/artists/etc. affected by this would have jumped right in if Google had asked in the first place, but no: They decided to take without asking and only put together this nearly impenetrable contract after the fact.

That's the real problem here. What they're doing might well turn out to be cool, but it's not okay to force people to go along or be crushed.

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

That's because Google doesn't even know how they're going to make money on the project. Currently they don't.

They're tossing around the idea of charging fees for access or doing contextual ads. At any rate, their settlement also calls for sharing that revenue with the rights holders. It's not a case of $60 and you never see another dime.

It's arguable whether or not it's stolen work. What they did is scanned in books and made them searchable but not published and visible. If you see more of the book than you would in the library's catalog system, they've got an agreement with the publisher to display it. So the copyright infringement is about this invisible digital copy residing inside the Google servers. Is it fair use? I couldn't tell you.

Thing is, this is how search engines work with the Internet, too. They've got a cached copy of the Internet on their servers. So did Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, etc steal the entire Internet? Maybe they did.

[gsemones.livejournal.com]

Or as my daughter would say:

EPIC FAIL.

I gave up on Google a while back. They get my searches from time to time, but I've dropped all their other stuff (bye bye gmail, docs, my.google, etc.).

[jjschwabach.livejournal.com]

I think I'm more confused than ever.... if I opt out, Google can steal my stuff and it's my fault, but if I opt in, they can steal my stuff but I get a pittance in return?

Is this at all related to the thing that SFWA asked folks to sign last year?

Me lose brain......

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

This is my non lawyer take on it, so consult with one if you need to. If you opt out, they don't use your stuff and you might be able to sue them if you think they violated your copyright.

If you opt in to the settlement, they can either use your stuff or not, your choice. So you can potentially get some pittance from out of print books or you can continue to let everyone trade it on bookcrossing for free.

[jjschwabach.livejournal.com]

Okay, that does put in in language I understand. (the "continue letting everyone...." part.)
The stick in the bottom confuses me ;-p...

[geekmom.livejournal.com]

Ha! I'm confused about the stick in the bottom part, too. I've got a longer post with highlights of the deal elsewhere in the thread.

[jjschwabach.livejournal.com]

Thanks :-)

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

I've heard authors say to opt in, then you're in control. Hard to know what to do, because the idiots in the Author's Guild accepted a big ol' stick in the bottom rather than a contract.