Google is not the altruistic entity they want everyone to believe they are. Google is in it for the money, and if they can line their pockets with someone else’s effort, they will do so. So much for “do no evil”.

I’m watching this settlement very closely, both as a writer and from the library viewpoint. I think what all aspiring writers need to do is read the settlement and write your Congressman. Object strongly because silence is acquiescence.

Teresa

You say:
————————–
“Consumers will have the ability to purchase online access to many in-copyright books for online reading, highlighting, limited printing, and other potential features. These features will be available for all in-copyright, out-of-print books unless the rightsholder chooses to deactivate these features, as well as for in-copyright, in-print books if the rightsholder chooses to activate these features. The agreement allows for Google and the Book Rights Registry to expand upon this with future additional offerings such as Print-on-Demand, Consumer Subscription, and other uses and services.” (From The Association of American Publishers Google FAQ.)
————————–

To me, this appears to mean that authors of out-of-print books can opt out of any Google publication, and authors of in-print books are automatically excluded and have to opt in if they want Google publication. So, how is this a seizure of rights? I’m not saying it’s not, I just don’t see what the problem is, so long as anyone can opt out.

It seems like the complaints are that the details of Google’s e-publication are being applied to all out-of-print works whose rightsholders don’t opt out, without each individual rightsholder negotiating their own contract? But it seems to me that Google is simply saying, here is our contract. Opt out if you don’t want to be part of it. Unless there is something making it difficult to opt out, it doesn’t look like a seizure of rights to me.

I guess a big question is, can you opt out at any time? Can you have your works included for some time, and then withdraw them? Or can you withdraw them, and then at some point decide to opt back in?

You also say:
————————–
While it sets up one agency the authors can’t fire, it also allows any number of additional sellers of display and e-rights to start businesses with the virtual guarantee that they never have to pay an author more than Google did. So Microsoft, Apple, The Open Source Republic of Gimmiestan, Piranah.com, etc. can all start businesses of any type and draw on all authors’ works without any further negotiation. Publishing consultants are already promising a gold rush of new business based on “content” with no recognition of “authors” in the business model.
————————–

Here I am confused about exactly how the settlement creates this environment where all these companies can run rampant. It seems to me that an author who opts out (or declines to opt in, in the case of in-print books) of Google’s program, is then in exactly the same position as always regarding e-publication with any other company: they can negotiate, and if payment is agreeable, they can sign on. Otherwise, they can decline to sign on. What is the problem? How has the settlement guaranteed that they won’t have to pay more than Google did? It seems like they might choose to base their pay scale on Google’s, or they might not, but in either case, wouldn’t the rightsholder be the one deciding whether to allow their intellectual property to be used by these companies? Thus wouldn’t they have to either pay a sum the rightsholder is willing accept, or deal with not having access to that rightsholder’s IP?

If you can explain why you think the settlement has these ramifications I’d certainly appreciate it!

What parts of this do we need to worry about? Is this something we should ask the agent who bravely takes on our work? In other words, for the future, what do authors do? I imagine this question would apply to any new works a published author is working on.