Is it Evil? Yes, Sir VERY Evil!!!

Vanity Fair has reported on the Google Author Settlement with a column bluntly entitled "Is the Google Author Book Settlement Evil?"

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/08/is-google-books-evil.html

I'm reminded of the silly yet twisted Dr. Seuss cinematic classic from the fifties -- "The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T" where a young boy subverts Dr. T's attempts to marry his mother and enslave his piano playing pupils with a concoction that distorts sound. When the kid threatens to blow Dr. T to smithereens with the contraption, the Doc implores "Is it ATOMIC?!!!," and Bart replies "Yes sir, VERY Atomic!!!"

So, is the Google Author Settlement Evil?! Yes, sir VERY Evil!!!



For Bart, it is just a dream . . . unfortunately for us the Google Author Settlement is much too real.

Five Day Countdown to Opt Out of the Google Author Settlement

Get ready to write your objection, opposition, amicus brief, or just plain bitchy letter to the court expressing your displeasure with the Google Author Settlement. The deadline is this Friday, September 4th.

C'mon, Writers write . . . for their rights. So get to it! Oh, and don't forget to opt out!

Here, let me get you started -- The Settlement sucks -- they stole my work -- infringed on my copyrights -- and are ramming through a sweetheart deal for Google so the attorneys can get paid $30 Million dollars, and Google can make ad revenue off of my intellectual property, which they STOLE!!! Oh, and you can't approve a class when those affected have NOT been notified!!! And you can't use a class action to re-write copyright law!!!

Not bad, expound as you will . . . try not to get too wordy, though. Enough boring shit has already been written about this settlement, especially the 383 page Settlement Agreement itself.

For a Second There, I was Led to Believe by the Claims Administrator, that Even I Did Not Understand the Google Author Settlement

So earlier this week, I attempted to OPT OUT of the Google Author Settlement online.

http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/

The Swiss say Nein to Google Street View

While the Germans are working with their American legal team on their Google Author Settlement Amicus brief in opposition to Google taking over the world, the easy going Swiss are getting their panties in a bunch over Google Street View.

"BERN, Switzerland - A Swiss government official is demanding that Google Inc. immediately take off the Internet any image of Switzerland in its "Street View Maps," and the company said Monday it would discuss the matter with the privacy rights regulator.
Hanspeter Thuer, federal data protection commissioner, said Google's pictures were violating Switzerland's strict privacy laws by failing to obscure people's identities.
"Numerous faces and license numbers weren't blurred or were done so inadequately," said Thuer's statement, adding that he "demands that Google Inc. immediately take its Google Street View online service off the Internet" until it can ensure that public images respect Swiss law.

One Swiss image made news over the weekend as it clearly captured national parliamentarian Ruedi Noser on the street walking with a woman."

Turns out the woman was his assistant and not his mistress, or a prostitute, so embarrassment was averted there -- but it just goes to show that Google's world domination agenda is running into detractors.

Of course, ever clever Google, put their cheery spin on the outcry -- "We are excited about the discussion with the commissioner to hear his thoughts and to respond by demonstrating how we protect the private sphere with Street View," said Peter Fleischer, Google's global privacy counsel."

Yep, I'm sure you are Google.

But, now back to our regularly scheduled program -- the Google Author Settlement.

We've still got a week and a half until the deadline for opting out, and/or filing objections, opposition, amicus briefs, or just plain cranky old rants, and all I have to say is -- are we having fun yet?

Keep those cards and letters coming!

Germany says Nein to Google Author Settlement

Germans don't mess around. When they don't like something, they don't like it -- and they do something about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/technology/internet/24books.html

The New York Times reports on the Growing European Opposition to the Google Author Settlement --

"In Britain, where many publishing houses have close ties to the United States, publishers have avoided open confrontation with Google.

But some British publishers have objections and are working with Google on issues like how to determine whether a book is out of print, which comes up when books are still widely available in Europe but no longer in the United States.

Some are also concerned about a lack of European representation on the Book Rights Registry, a panel that is supposed to collect and distribute revenue from Google’s book sales in the United States to authors and publishers.

In Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Spain, opposition to the settlement is more vocal.

The German government has hired an American law firm, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, to submit a friend-of-the-court brief opposing Google."

Somehow I think Germany should write their own Amicus (friend of the court) Brief, instead of hiring American ghost writers. I'd prefer something I could read while eating Bratwurst and drinking Heifenwizen. Books, brats, and beer is something I could really get behind.

The British pansies need to up their game. Tea and crumpets is not going to cut it.

Comments Are No Longer Being Accepted

Okay, I meant to write this post about the article in the New York Times Today on the Google Author Settlement . . . BUT, when I accessed that article tonight to read the comments, and post one of my own, I was rudely faced with this "COMMENTS ARE NO LONGER BEING ACCEPTED"

What???!!! The article was just posted today, and the 11 comments are mostly of the ilk "anything that makes access for the public for free, is okay by me".

Yeah, you say that now . . . but just wait until YOUR intellectual property has been stolen! You will change your tune REAL quick. It is always okay when you are stealing some one else's stuff, but never okay when you own is being lifted !!!

Jeez, just when I thought the New York Times was a good thing again, they pull this crap.

readers' comments
Lawyer and Author Adds His Objections to Settling the Google Book LawsuitBack to Article »
By MIGUEL HELFT and MOTOKO RICH
A deal to let Google profit from digital books raises questions about fairness and privacy.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

11 Readers' CommentsAll Comments
Editors' Selections
Readers' Recommendations
Replies
Oldest Newest
1.JNagarya
Massachusetts
August 19th, 2009
9:22 amMost of the out-of-print books scanned by Google have entered the public domain. Does that mean that Google can, in addition to charging for access to them -- while putting a "generosity" face on it -- sue others who might take a copy and compete by selling it elsewhere?

If so, wouldn't that be tantamount to Google removing public domain materials -- materials owned by the public -- from the public domain by claiming a quasi-ownership/copyright, in order then to charge the public for access to its own property?

And isn't that the same scam with which we are faced with the Internet? The Internet was developed by taxpayer-funded research. That means it is the property of the public. But the taxpayer/public is charged a fee by one or another private corporations in order to access his/its own property. I think as example of online access to public libraries, which are funded largely or fully by the taxpayer: one must pay a private corporation for access to that public property.

Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 2.EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?) Narty
Boston
August 19th, 2009
9:22 amI often search high and low for out-of-print books. If Google makes it convenient for an ordinary user like me, I say 'go for it'. I am willing to pay for that service.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 3.C Arbuthnot
Shanghai
August 19th, 2009
9:22 amWhatever happened to "Don't be evil"?
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 4.drabauer
California
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmFor the life of me, I don't see the downside to this agreement. Google books have been an immeasurable boon to research, and will return orphan works to the public. I too am more than willing to pay. As to JNagara, why would Google charging access for public domain works be any different than Dover books? It's simply a different delivery system, not exclusive rights.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 5.EW
Boston
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmPublishers are just resisting Google because they are once again annoyed that they didn't think of this scheme first. Publishers (and the authors who are naive about the publishing process)need to stop fighting Google and get on board instead. If an agreement can be/has been made where publishers continue to receive money for some of what is on the web, then, ENOUGH already! And for the out of print books, yes most of them are probably in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that they are available on-line automatically. If Google doesn't put them on the web, someone else eventually will. In my opinion, why not let Google go forward--they know what they are doing--obviously.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 6.Tom
Pittsburgh
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmMr. Buckley's position makes no sense. I understand wanting to be fairly compensated for one's works, and all authors should. But objecting to a settlement just to be ornery is pedantic. One would assume he wrote his books so people could read them. The train is leaving the station bro... books are going digital. Some people still ride horses to work, but not too many.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 7.HJH
Boston
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmWhat happened to doing what is best for the people? Given broader access to out-of-print books will help students, researchers, scholars, and just us plain folk who like to be better informed. As long as Google does not have a monopoly and others can make similar agreements with publisher associations, making all older books available can only be beneficial.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 8.KF
New York, NY
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmLawrence Lessig on the settlement: http://www.benjaminjtaylor.com...

This presentation explains the terms of the settlement really well and poses the right questions. Even if (admittedly) he doesn't have all the right answers, his is the clearest and most thoughtful approach I have encountered on the topic.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 9.patientpatient
Colorado Springs
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmGoogle's proposal damages the effective systems in place to find, acquire and use out of print books. Book sellers, usually independent small businesspeople make a living from it. Online catalogs, such as WorldCat, provide a guide to library availability. The diversity of the system protects the books' availability. I don't want to have one for-pay source. It's too easy to shut down ideas.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 10.Kanga
Orlando
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmMaking out of print works accessible is a noble idea and will no doubt be useful for consumers and worth paying for; however, Cristopher Buckley's quote says it all. Check your wallet -- wise words to anyone who has written, or aspires to write.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 11.aalakos
a965912
August 19th, 2009
4:32 pmThis reaction reminds me of the mindlessness of the health care debate. All kind of interests fighting to keep the status quo in place. But at least in this case, technology will eventually prevail. Being ornery or uninformed won't work here.
I don't see how making all information (books, etc) available easily in digital format will be a bad think.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers

Look for the Union Label!

Another urge to opt out of the Google Author Settlement came this week from the AFL-CIO in the form of this Writer's Union press release --

http://www.nwubook.org/NWU-Google-Release.pdf

Even Lawyers Don't Understand the Google Author Settlement

This is what really scares me about the Google Author Settlement -- even lawyers don't understand it -- Intellectual Property lawyers who make a living interpreting this stuff and advising clients, are incredibly clueless when it comes to this settlement. And to make matters worse . . . they write about it!

Sure, it is all right there in the fine print, if you care to read the 33 pages of the class notice, or if you a real glutton for punishment, the 383 pages of the Settlement agreement -- so a lawyer, who went to law school, and passed the bar, makes a living with this stuff, teaches law, and has the nerve to blog his educated opinions, should be able to decipher it, right?

Wrong . . . case in point . . . Michael Ratoza, Esq.

Last week I binged "Google Author Settlement" and this blog entry popped up.

http://www.bullivant.com/Opt-Out-of-Google Should an Author, or Author's Heir, Opt Out of the Google Book Settlement?

Hmmm, should I or shouldn't I, Mr. Ratoza - lawyer/blogger/educator/all around great guy?

He begins "The time to fish or cut bait regarding opting out of the proposed Google book settlement is fast approaching. This right of a copyright owner to be excluded from the Google class action settlement should be approached carefully and cautiously by authors and their heirs."

Okay, I like a folksy metaphor as much as the next gal, and the time to fish or cut bait IS fast approaching. I read on. . .

"Staying in the settlement may be financially beneficial to an author by increasing circulation of an author's work. But opting out of the Google settlement by an author or an author's heirs may make sense in certain instances. First, failure to opt out may void the protection from seizure of a copyrighted work."

Wow!!! That last sentence really nailed it, didn't it? It bears repeating -- "Failure to opt out may void the protection from seizure of a copyrighted work." Weighty stuff, it is sinking in.

Then, he brings the IRS into it!!! "The Copyright Act prevents a government body (other than a bankruptcy trustee) from taking action to seize, expropriate, transfer or exercise ownership over a copyright interest that has not previously been transferred. If an author has not previously transferred an interest in the author's great American novel, song, or other work, then the IRS (plus any other government body, plus any general creditor) is prevented from seizing and exercising ownership over the work.

The protection from seizure only applies if the rights to the work have not been transferred voluntarily by the author. If the author fails to opt out of the Google book settlement, then it may be the case that the Court's approval of the book settlement is deemed to constitute a voluntary transfer of the author's distribution right to Google. In such an event, the protection from seizure may be lost. Is the IRS licking its chops right about now?"

The IRS angle is complete news to me, and I was opting - out anyways, but I got to give it to Mr. Ratoza (yes, RAToza) to frighten me even more.

He goes on for another paragraph or two, but at this point, I decide to call him up. Maybe, just maybe he might like to represent the opt-outs. From the information on his blog, he certainly seems to understand the gist of the settlement, and lean on the side of protecting writers' rights.

So, he answers his phone, and of course wants to know how I got his number. I said I binged him, and his blog popped up, and this of course totally throws him for a loop. "You mean people really read that stuff?!" is his response. Yeah, well, miracles never cease to amaze. . .

I get right to the point and tell him that I am looking for representation and again I catch him off guard. You see, even though lawyers are supposed to wait around until clients call them, it is a rare occurrence, and when it happens they don't really know what to do.

As our conversation continues, I tell him that I am aware that I can not opt-out and object, as I would like to do both. This is where things get weird. He tells me that I can opt-out and object. I say, no, I don't think that is possible, but if it were I would be thrilled to do so.

He insists, that yes, I can opt-out and object. I know this to be false, but I side step it out of decorum, and again ask him if he would consider representing the opt-outs. At this point he says something about having to get a letter out, and asks if he can return my call later. I say yes, absolutely, and naturally, four days later, I have yet to hear from him.

So, here is the very clear language from the class action notice regarding opting out and objecting "Once you opt out, you lose any right to object to the Settlement, because the Settlement will no longer affect you."

Understood? Okay, you are now officially smarter than a lawyer.

Desperate Times call for Desparate Measures - I Place a Craigslist Ad

The Grumpy Old Literary Agent Suggests - OPT OUT!

http://graysonagency.com/blog/publishing/the-google-settlement/

Roy Blount Drinks the KOOL-AID!

The New York Times Reports -

June 24, 2009, 6:10 pm — Updated: 4:36 pm

Roy Blount: Say Yes to ‘Google Books’
By Motoko Rich
Google’s settlement with authors and publishers over its scanning of millions of books contained in several university libraries has come under fire recently from critics who argue that Google is effectively creating a monopoly of digital versions of books.
The criticism has centered on so-called orphan books, out-of-print books that are still in copyright but for which rights holders cannot be found.
On Wednesday, in an open letter to members, Roy Blount, the president of the Authors Guild, argued that such criticism was unwarranted.
“I would generally rather be a dissenter, myself, than not,” he wrote. But, he added: “I can’t see any reason to dissent from the settlement over the matter of orphan books.”
These books, he said, are being given an opportunity with the Google settlement — the chance to see the light of day and find readers again. “Google is essentially being accused of cornering the market on the unmarketable,” Mr. Blount, the author of “Longtime Leaving” and “Alphabet Juice.”
“To prevent a monopoly of the orphans, the dissenters would undo a wide range of benefits to authors, publishers and readers,” he concluded, appending a list of benefits of the settlement.
The Google settlement is currently the subject of a Justice Department inquiry and is also subject to court review.

Let's hear what the commentors have to say -

6 Comments
1. June 24, 2009 10:16 pm Link
If Google were really pursuing this project in the public interest, they would “open source” the OCR product of their scanning and let other entities, public and private, design their own search engines and products based on that corpus. Google Books would still probably be the most popular front end, but it would no longer be a monopoly, and Google would not have stolen millions of books for its own use.— lexicon
2. June 25, 2009 12:27 pm Link
Big anything is bad.— E. Nowak
3. June 26, 2009 10:35 am Link
Giving attention to out-of-print books is an issue? That’s like saying someone is too much of a philanthropist. Give me a break! The bad thing about getting too big is that fear, suspicion and envy are disregarded or considered ‘cool’. It probably would not be a bad thing if Google shared with others through Open Source arrangements but if they put that much work into this project, they deserve to get some attention for awhile. I would guess if they were professionally urged to follow public recommendations, they would be happy to take that action.— Pete
4. June 27, 2009 11:53 am Link
Mr. Blount - You may be right this time, but we’d all prefer if you cram a shoe in your pie hole and go back to goober land.— joe miklovic
5. July 2, 2009 11:55 am Link
Google is not charging for this service. I love the fact that I can find books that are often out of print and written in the 18th century or ealier. Its a great resouce, for FREE. I fully believe in protecting copywrite holders, but in regards to orphan books there is no harm being done.— Chip
6. July 7, 2009 8:26 pm Link
An electronic database would undoubtedly serve the public interest by increasing the availability of works which would otherwise be lost in dusty attics and moldy basements. However, I object to the monopolization of this market by Google, who has commandeered the first and most comprehensive collection of electronic books by brazen infringement. I’m not sure why they should get exactly what they want through a forced settlement. (Don’t tell me I can opt out of the settlement. Most people are going to go along with it, so the opportunity for independent “negotiation” is nil.)— cmw
7. August 15, 2009 6:53 pm Link
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Roy Blount is dead wrong. The Google Author Settlement is VERY, VERY bad for writers. By all means, OPT-OUT!!! If you don’t your intellectual property will be held hostage by Google. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid. Stand up, walk away, and live to write another day!— casinocon

You might have guessed - that last one is mine!

William Morris and I Agree - OPT OUT!!!

The New York Times has reported that the William Morris Agency is urging all their clients to opt-out of the Google Author Settlement.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/william-morris-advises-clients-to-say-no-to-google-settlement/?scp=1&sq=william%20morris%20endeavor&st=cse

All I have to say is I'm not the only one with half a brain after all.

In a memo to clients obtained by The New York Times, William Morris advises writers to opt out of the settlement because it would “bind copyright owners in any book published prior to January 9, 2009 to its terms.” The terms of the agreement call for authors and publishers to split 63 percent of any revenue that Google generates from the sale of a digitized book either individually or in a database, as well as ad revenues from pages where an author’s work appears.
“Now they’ve got this license to sell your books at a pre-negotiated one-time royalty that you’re stuck with unless a court changes the settlement,” Eric Zohn, an attorney in business affairs at William Morris, said in an interview. “It’s like a legislative change. Under copyright law, you don’t have anything without express written consent from the copyright holder. Now the court is saying Google is free to sell your book unless you expressly tell them not to.”

Yep, it is pretty plain, that the Google Author Settlement is a very bad deal for any writer interested in protecting their copyrights. Eric Zohn, I salute you.

The comments on this article, however, make me want to cry.


1.I don’t understand - is WME going to initiate a separate class action suit on behalf of its authors? How does opting out achieve anything other than reserving one’s right to litigate the matter?
— Paul
2. August 9, 2009 11:57 am Link
Google is replacing the old record companies by hoarding copyrights of artists and now authors. Very few content originators understand that the “gold” is in the copyright, not the “front money”. Good move on WM’s part.— Michael Scott Gallegos
3. August 9, 2009 5:31 pm Link
I suspect this has more to do with WM fearing it will lose money for itself rather than the authors the agency represents. Then again, if they do negotiate a separate deal, the only ones to really make money will be the agency lawyers.— Eric Welch
4. August 9, 2009 6:44 pm Link
This article is contradictory. Mr. Zohn appears to be advising clients to opt in.— Anna Petrakis
5. August 10, 2009 9:10 am Link
I don’t think they mean “opt out” I think they’re advising their authors to claim their titles, and then remove all display uses…except Zohn says that displaying snippets of text is a good idea. I think someone needs to edit the opening para of this article - v confusing— Alex
6. August 10, 2009 9:36 am Link
Yes, Paul correctly notes perversity #1 of this. Perversity #2 is that what Zohn agrees to in the last graf is effectively the program that Google had originally proposed—scan & snippets. But scan and snippets was too much for the AAP and Authors’ Guild, so they come up with the current settlement. It would be funny if it weren’t so painful.— Richard Eoin Nash
7. August 10, 2009 3:13 pm Link
I think it’s possible that Rich isn’t distinguishing here between the Google Settlement and the Google Books program. One involves books scanned without permission (the settlement) and the other is a “partner program” that makes current books searchable via Google via arrangement with the publishers. There is so much misinformation about the settlement out there and inexact reporting like this only perpetuates the confusion.
Still, the memo begs the question: Is Wm. Morris Endeavor planning its own suit on behalf of its clients? Encouraging them to sue on their own? Rich’s article really doesn’t tell you all that much about what this means.— Stuart