GBBR: Right On Chinese Authors

So when is it right to apologise to one group of people but not apologise to another when you have done exactly the same thing to both? The question is simple but some would suggest that the answer is far from simple in Googleworld. Some would say that Google are acting with double standards when they issue a public apology to Chinese writers and also admit that it scanned books under Chinese copyright for its Google Books digital library project but do little elsewhere.

Far from admitting any guilt or offering an apology Google in the West fought hard to defend themselves. AFP . Perhaps they believe that China is different, no doubt they will say it’s a special case, that their laws are different, but was it the law, political pressure or the simple dollar that bought them to their knees and forced them to issue an apology as reported by AFP. Some would look at the bigger picture with Googleworld trying to penetrate the Chinese market on many fronts.

Erik Hartmann, their Asia-Pacific head of Google Books posted the apology on the website of the Chinese Writers Association, ‘Through the discussions and communications of recent months, it is our understanding that our communications with Chinese writers have not been good enough. Google is willing to apologise to Chinese authors.’

The Chinese certainly have mystic powers over Google and Hartmann also appeared on their state television and acknowledged the practice of scanning books had angered Chinese writers. The China Written Works Copyright Society is reportedly now in talks with Google to resolve issues and agree terms for compensation. Google has undertaken not to scan no more books without authorisation from Chinese writers and wishes to resolve the dispute by March.

So why didn’t it stop its scanning elsewhere?

So why didn’t Google apologise to the, US, UK, European authors and publishers?

Perhaps its easier here to go into a closed room and cut a deal, then revisit it when its found wanting, then rope in the soft siblings such as the UK, Canada, Australia and leave out those such as France, Germany and others who may prove more united.
Some would suggest that the reality is probably somewhere hidden in the murky deal rooms with those who were not strong enough to negotiate and stand up to Google and merely make gestures and capitulated.

Meanwhile it appears that more US authors are standing up and behind the recent lead of Ursula K Le Guin who accused the Authors Guild of a "deal with the devil" and resigned her membership. The Presidents of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, the National Writers Union and the American Society of Journalists and Authors all yesterday issued a joint letter to more than 60 authors in Congress urging them to protest against the Google books settlement.

Their letter states, ‘There are millions of book authors in this country who could be locked into an agreement they don’t understand and didn’t ask for. The Authors Guild represents only a tiny fraction of published writers, yet the new regulatory board set up in the proposed settlement will override individual book contracts – not to mention common law and even the Constitutional.’

They go on to nail the issue of orphan rights, ‘No matter how much they amend it, the fundamental problem at the heart of the settlement --unilaterally giving all digital rights to orphan works to Google --- remains. Legislation is needed to deal with orphan works fairly. Simply allowing Google to profit from these works without any attempt to find the rights holders makes a mockery of copyright.’

It should shame us that China is showing the Western world and in particular the US how to deal with basic rights.

The Great Book Bank Robbery - What Do You Want To Be when You Grow Up?

A question we often ask children, ‘what do you want to be when you grow up?’ We often ask the same of businesses who appear to be spreading their bets across several opportunities. We could now ask ourselves and Google exactly what the book settlement will look like if it is allowed to mature. What started out as a case action against copyright infringement is now clearly turning into something that if unchecked could morph into a category killer. Some will rub their hand s and say it will be for the good of all, others are desperately holding up warning cards and Google’s response is to ask if anyone could have done better!

Many predicted that Google aimed to be a bookseller – the finally declared their hand and the implications are still not really being thought through. Many saw the obvious link through to print on demand and to move into physical books and to further exploit the assets they acquire for chump change. Many saw the dangers to the library infrastructure and the potential danger of ‘loose pricing arrangements’, but many blindly appear to trust strangers bearing gifts. Many saw the need for a rights registry and welcomed the impetus to initiate the move, but we have already seen who really owns it and their ability to change even the construct of it while it is being deliberated in what some would say is an attempt to merely get their way. Many saw the emerging conflict with digital aggregators and service providers but dismiss this as mere commerce and forget the investment and legitimate route that these took. Will they go the full circle and become a publisher? We doubt it but a facilitator of self publishing may well appeal and who can stand in their way?

What prompted us to write once again about what we named last October as ‘The Great Book Bank Robbery’?

Google recognises that simply digitizing the world's books is merely the key to the door, exploiting them and ‘sweating the asset’ in every conceivable manner including turning them back into print pages is the real goal. Google will provide some 2m out-of-copyright book titles to the On Demand Books partnership. This may double the service’s inventory today but what about tomorrow? We talk about the Amazon, Google battle but what about the Ingram, Google one in areas such as print on demand and digital distribution? Depending on the outcome of the US Justice Department's investigation into the Google Books project, they could soon get access to a further stash of 'orphan' book titles. It is expected that they will raise a number of concerns with the settlement but charm and platitudes will no doubt follow from all parties to the deal. We may all dispute the number of orphan works but the issue has never been about whether this was one or 6 million the question was about the exclusivity, the clear breach of their current legal status and now even what can be done with them once the flood gates are released.

On Demand Books will obviously benefit and retailers with the machine will wonder about the franchise sitting on their floor alongside the coffee one and what is the real draw and who owns the customer. The Google Books titles will go on sale through the machine at a recommended retail price of USD8. From this, On Demand Books and Google will each take an estimated USD1 cut, with USD3 going on materials and the remaining USD3 profit going to the retailer that houses the machine. Google claims that it will donate its share of the profits to charity.

So as we take it all in and await the next announcement partnership we ask once again what Google's Book Settlement wants to be when it grows up? We are reminded of that thoughtful presentation on the subject by Larry Lessing ‘Lessing’s Thoughts on the Google Book Settlement’ . Perhaps we should all be mindful of tiger cubs, they may look like kittens, act like kittens but grow up to be something very different!

Thew Great Book Bank Robbery - Its All About Orphans

As the clock ticks slowly towards the Google settlement closure, voices are starting to be heard and debate is starting to take place. It may be too little too late, but people are starting to question and unravel the complex settlement.

In an interesting article ‘It’s all about the orphans’ Brewster Kahle writing on OpenContentAlliance.com questions whether Google, the AAP, and the Authors Guild have now negotiated their own private solution to the problem of orphan works and created an ‘elaborate scheme for the exploitation of orphan works.’

We have written many times about orphan works and the moves to legalize their adoption both in the US and Europe and the fact that the settlement basically just takes them. We have questioned the publishing houses that had tried to previously kill off rights reversals and about this vast treasure trove of content that sits, often lost, between public domain and in print.

Kahle agrues;
The upshot, if the Settlement is approved, would be legal protection for Google, and only for Google, to scan and provide digital access to the orphan works. Presto! Like magic, Google proceeds without any need for legislation: their own private orphan works legislation.

Now, however, no one but Google will have access to the orphan class created by the Settlement, without enduring a similar class action lawsuit from the authors and publishers.

We may agree with Kahle we may not but what is important is that the Google Book Search Debate continues and what amazes us is the sheer lack of debate in many circles. This is either out of fear of being wrong, a case of the ‘blind leading the blind’ or just apathy to asking questions. Its similar to one of the conferences where the speakers speak down to their audience, there is no debate, no questions but at the break time everyone is taking about the questions they wanted to ask.

Below is a link to a synopsis of a discussion the implications of the Google Book Search Settlement at Georgetown last month. The debate involved James Grimmelman (New York Law) and Siva Vaidhyanathan (Univ. of Virginia).

‘Notes from Georgetown Symposium on Google Book Search Settlement’