3 ms·

A switch to opt-in would make a huge difference in Google having access to works like yours. People who would be willing to have their work available may not c

by prewett 16y ago

A switch to opt-in would make a huge difference in Google having access to works like yours. People who would be willing to have their work available may not care enough to go to the web site. Even worse, what about the authors who are not contactable for some reason. They cannot possibly opt-in.

anigbrowl 16y ago
Yes, but I was talking about the difference to Google's bottom line. The unavailability of little-known or orphaned works and/or a somewhat higher payout for infringement in some of those cases, would not have a very big financial impact on Google or its book digitization project. An incomplete collection would be a shame, but Google could continue to scan the works and just abstain from exploiting or republishing them pending some future evolution of the legal environment. On the other hand, a broader rejection which made the project into a potential financial disaster for Google might have resulted in the whole venture being terminated, a much greater loss for internet readers. With few exceptions, the difficult of locating the rights-holders for obscure and orphan literary works stems from their lack of literary or commercial value: if the copyright had been worth protecting, someone would have maintained an active claim of ownership. The number of valuable works whose copyright owners cannot be located is small - in the worst case, they'll be inaccessible to internet readers in the short term but will become available later when the copyright expires. But in most cases, readers won't be missing much. The truly dedicated can still go to a physical library which has a paper copy. You seem to think I prefer the opt-in approach; in fact I was perfectly fine with the existing settlement offer, and I'm sorry that it has been rejected by the court. All I am saying is the court's rejection could have been worse, and Google may choose to live with the loss of the suggested alternative. Now it's going to go through another year or three of legal wrangling, which will limit further investment by Google, slow deployment of the technology, and reduce startup opportunities based on leveraging the Books API. Nor am I blind to the inconvenience for researchers and scholars that an opt-in or other limitations might impose. As a matter of fact I'm dealing with that exact problem right now: there is a book-length government report that I very much want to study for a personal research project, but thanks to a legislative scheduling snafu back in 1995 no funds were ever allocated to print or archive it properly (it's not classified or anything). There is one typewritten manuscript copy stored in the Library of Congress and one photocopy of that stored in an agency archive. That's it - only two publicly accessible copies exist. There's an interesting backstory, but right now my choices are to spend $150 to have someone in Washington DC photocopy the whole thing or to wait until I have time, cash and an excuse to visit DC and spend a day copying it myself at a (slightly) lower cost. Copyright isn't at issue here, but trust me, I'm keenly aware of the frustration that arises from knowing something exists but being unable to easily access it.

by prewett 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago

Yes, but I was talking about the difference to Google's bottom line. The unavailability of little-known or orphaned works and/or a somewhat higher payout for infringement in some of those cases, would not have a very big financial impact on Google or its book digitization project. An incomplete collection would be a shame, but Google could continue to scan the works and just abstain from exploiting or republishing them pending some future evolution of the legal environment. On the other hand, a broader rejection which made the project into a potential financial disaster for Google might have resulted in the whole venture being terminated, a much greater loss for internet readers. With few exceptions, the difficult of locating the rights-holders for obscure and orphan literary works stems from their lack of literary or commercial value: if the copyright had been worth protecting, someone would have maintained an active claim of ownership. The number of valuable works whose copyright owners cannot be located is small - in the worst case, they'll be inaccessible to internet readers in the short term but will become available later when the copyright expires. But in most cases, readers won't be missing much. The truly dedicated can still go to a physical library which has a paper copy. You seem to think I prefer the opt-in approach; in fact I was perfectly fine with the existing settlement offer, and I'm sorry that it has been rejected by the court. All I am saying is the court's rejection could have been worse, and Google may choose to live with the loss of the suggested alternative. Now it's going to go through another year or three of legal wrangling, which will limit further investment by Google, slow deployment of the technology, and reduce startup opportunities based on leveraging the Books API. Nor am I blind to the inconvenience for researchers and scholars that an opt-in or other limitations might impose. As a matter of fact I'm dealing with that exact problem right now: there is a book-length government report that I very much want to study for a personal research project, but thanks to a legislative scheduling snafu back in 1995 no funds were ever allocated to print or archive it properly (it's not classified or anything). There is one typewritten manuscript copy stored in the Library of Congress and one photocopy of that stored in an agency archive. That's it - only two publicly accessible copies exist. There's an interesting backstory, but right now my choices are to spend $150 to have someone in Washington DC photocopy the whole thing or to wait until I have time, cash and an excuse to visit DC and spend a day copying it myself at a (slightly) lower cost. Copyright isn't at issue here, but trust me, I'm keenly aware of the frustration that arises from knowing something exists but being unable to easily access it.