Google Books – I Don’t Think I Have A Problem With All This
So Google has been, and is being, sued by a whole bunch of writers for scanning their books into the Google database. And now a whole bunch of Chinese authors are joining in. I sort of get that, but not entirely.
I have looked at the description of the settlement agreement on the Google web site. It’s rather complicated, since there are several categories of works involved.
I can’t really figure out what will happen under the new system. At the moment, Google does not allow folks to read entire copyrighted books online. The book is either in the system for text search and purchase options, or at the most there are page excerpts to enhance the whole system, something that Amazon has been doing for years. Moreover, the excerpts are not made available without the consent of the publisher.
I looked up the book on EU trade policy that I co-authored back in the late 90s. Sure enough, it’s in the Google books database. However, the page just gives you a summary, publishing info, and links for purchase. Not even any excerpts.
Under the new system, online reading will be made available, but the “deal” to be made with publishers/authors is hard to figure out. The fact that the original plan was halted by a U.S. Federal judge suggests that there is an element I have overlooked here, although perhaps the current language on the Google settlement page reflects an updated, better program that treats authors better.
From what I can gather, authors will be compensated USD 60 for participating in the program (i.e. having their works included in the database) and then can enter into a fee-splitting arrangement with Google for purchases (I assume this includes online reading). If they want to opt out, they have to do so affirmatively.
This is the one thing that I don’t much care for. Individual authors may be in the position of having to specifically opt out. This is a pain in the ass, and could be extremely difficult for foreigners.
In general, though, the whole thing looks like a decent settlement. The news today regarding complaints by Chinese authors is a bit overblown. I’m sure the authors are generally sincere, but the “shock” and “outrage” over Google’s attempts to help these guys distribute their books globally goes too far.
I suppose there is a technical violation of copyright here if an author/publisher has not affirmatively granted permission for even excerpting, but in the grand scheme of copyright infringement (remember that these authors are getting ripped off daily here in the PRC), this is pretty tame. I have no idea whether the act of scanning a copyrighted work, in and of itself, constitutes infringement; it is a reproduction, I guess, so maybe. But if there is no unauthorized distribution? Questions, questions.
Some out there seem to be enjoying this, in a weird sort of way. Rich at All Roads had the following comments:
Google did what no one else to date managed to do… find a way to turn the tables and highlight the fact that China also has IP that can be infringed.
and
[W]ill this become a “foreigners stealing from China” issue? Or… will it create a dialogue among China’s artists to begin pushing for IP protection, and setting the ball in motion?
Whatever Google is doing that is inappropriate, it’s sad that they are being tarred with the same brush used for other copyright infringers, particularly in this country. Whatever the current problems, I love the idea of Google’s project and am glad it will be moving forward.
As for the big picture, I fear that this may devolve into a nationalist driven, us-versus-them, little author against big multinational, sort of story in China. If this case is used by folks in China to somehow argue that “Hey, stop complaining so much about IP infringement; we’re not the only ones doing this sort of thing,” well, that would be a very inappropriate comparison. Moreover, the “everyone is doing it” defense is notoriously weak.
Authors here have actually been fighting against piracy, including online infringement, for quite a few years. They “put the ball in motion” many years ago, but unfortunately have not gotten the kind of press attention that the movie and music companies garner on a regular basis.
I don’t think any good will come of this. Like Rich, though, I do hope that a good settlement is finally reached and the project moves ahead smoothly. It will be interesting to watch the rhetoric.
Stan, you are the IP guy, not me, but my understanding is that whether there’s even a technical violation of copyright is not clear. After all, look at what Google now does for web sites (the content of which is protected by copyright). It gives you an excerpt in response to your search request. Google’s argument, which doesn’t seem silly to me, is that what it’s doing for books is no different.
I should add that I’m not clear about whether what Google does for web sites is lawful because (a) it’s not a violation of copyright, or (b) it *is* a violation but is then excused for some reason such as fair use.
Yes, I generally agree with you on the excerpt issue, although a caveat on this as it is not something I have looked at from either a Berne Convention perspective or China’s Copyright Law (as usual, the latter wouldn’t help us with this specific question). Anyway, Amazon has been doing this sort of thing for years. Taking a step away from the legal analysis, it is undeniably a “fair” practice.
The question about Google’s new/proposed online reading system is the real kicker. Obviously there are very clear copyright considerations here. My questions about it go more to the opt-out system and whether that is permissible since Google claims that it will not make these books available for online reading without affirmative or constructive permission from the author/publisher. Again, though, this is such a specific issue, perhaps of first instance, that any legal opinion (at least from me) would be wholly speculative.
Where’s a bona fide copyright guru when you need one?
I haven’t followed this suit too much, but I think the “opt-out” is one of the big concerns. That essentially flips U.S. copyright law without Congressional action.
Another concern is that this gives Google a monopoly. Can other companies do the same thing, etc?
But like I said, I haven’t followed this too much. If I’m not mistaken, most commentators have come out against it, and I think the U.S. government may have filed a brief against it. So now, they are back to the drawing board to create a revised agreement.