Google Settlement Under Attack for Making Treasure out of Trash

A major literary agency is urging its authors to opt out of the Google settlement. A lawyer is planning to file his opposition to the settlement.

Where were they when, year after year and decade after decade, a treasure house of literary works was abandoned? Along comes Google with a plan to recover those treasures from the trash heap and now those who abandoned them have become passionate bibliophiles. Or have they just become jealous that someone figured out how to make a profit on properties in which they had no interest?

From where I sit it’s not about books, it’s about money. In the course of rescuing countless works from the public domain and adding value to works that publishers, agents and authors deemed commercially valueless, Google figured out how to monetize those works. And now those selfsame parties want a piece of something they so recently turned their backs on. It reminds me of the oil producers who abandoned tracts because they couldn’t get oil from shale. Then someone figured out how to get oil from shale and now the oil companies claim they’ve been duped.

Perhaps a better analogy is the story of the Little Red Hen. None of her friends – the cat, the duck, the rat – offered to help her to sow the seeds, water the plants, till the soil, pull the weeds, harvest the wheat, thresh the grain, grind the flour or bake the bread. But when the bread was baked, all her friends wanted a piece.

The Little Red Hen said to them, “You shall have no bread.” And the moral of this classic childrens tale is that she had every right to say it to them.

So – why do I smell a cat, a duck, and a rat?

Though Google has sown the seeds, watered the plants, tilled the soil, pulled the weeds, harvested the wheat, threshed the grain, ground the flour and baked the bread, it has, after a concerted effort by responsible author and publisher organizations, worked with our community to make sure that everybody gets a piece of bread. But that doesn’t seem to be enough for some who have conveniently forgotten who did all the work, invested all the money, developed the technology, and embarked on a stupendous effort to identify the priceless treasures of civilization’s literary heritage and see to it that they will never be lost.

Google also did it to make a profit. And for that they are under attack. Forgive me for wondering about the profit motives of these knights who belatedly ride into our midst with flags of righteous indignation unfurled.

Richard Curtis

Cover of The Little Red Hen, Usborne First Reading series,

Tags: Authors Guild, copyright, Google, Google Settlement, Publishing Industry
Posted in All, Copyright and Piracy, E-book Industry (news) | 17 Comment »

Anonymous wrote on August 19, 2009 at 6:08 am

The difference here is that Google is stealing the seeds. They're not theirs to plant. So why let them hog the bread? Give everyone equal access to the seeds and you might just establish a bread market. And that would be best for everyone in our market-based economy.

ellen9 wrote on August 19, 2009 at 7:28 am

A refreshing take on this controversy.

Frankly, as rights owners we've long been frustrated that there is no way for a rights holder to make any money from an out of print book, unless some publisher decides to buy the rights to print it again.

Now Google is going to hand us some money for things we own but couldn't use. I'm fine with that.

To reply to the post above, and stretch the analogy about as far as it can go, Google didn't steal the seeds; it found them lying around where no one was paying attention and offered me some money for them. Fine with me.

peter wrote on August 19, 2009 at 8:50 am

Dear Richard,
This is wonderful and funny. Hooray for the little red hen!

Elizabeth K. Burton wrote on August 19, 2009 at 9:34 am

Let's face it–it's always about money these days where the mainstream publishing industry is concerned. Witness their plump fees for the right to quote a line or two from a published work, in or out of print, in another commercial book.

Product placement, it should be noted, that other industries pay even more plump fees to the film industry for.

However, expecting a rational discussion when Amazon or Google is involved is an exercise in futility. They are huge and successful, and are therefore, de facto, out to steal from everyone. Or so the basic argument seems to go.

Is it just me, or is there a bit of irony in the fact that people who pirate music, movies and, yes, books, use essentially the same argument to justify their behavior: "They have a ton of money, so they won't miss it. And they're ripping off the little people anyway, so they deserve it."

Anonymous wrote on August 20, 2009 at 4:02 am

So, have I got this right? You say Google is not out to make money? Just Big Kindly Uncle G?

But all these other people, big and small, are quite unreasonable in wanting keep ownership of what they have?

I'm racing back to a read of my logic texts [not from Google].

And Richard, I want some of what you are on.

Joseph Harris in the UK

Richard Curtis wrote on August 20, 2009 at 5:19 am

Time to put on your glasses, Anonymous. "Google also did it to make a profit" is right there in the blog. It's not about Google's profit motive, which is a given. It's about people taking a suspiciously keen interest in the value of something they threw away – after Google realized there were profits to be made from it.

Anonymous wrote on August 20, 2009 at 7:36 am

Richard, no one threw away their rights. Up until now, technology didn't offer an economic method to sell the millions of out of print titles that might only sell single or double digit copies per year. It wasn't feasible to print them, warehouse them, ship them, etc., etc. On demand and ebook changes that. Why give Google a de facto exclusive on the orphan works? Change the law and let anyone publish them provided they pay a statutory fee. Or declare them public domain so everyone can enjoy them at little or no cost. But rewarding Google for its possibly illegal appropriation just doesn't seem like the best choice for any. Except Google of course.

Richard Curtis wrote on August 20, 2009 at 8:04 am

I agree with Anonymous in principle but a good analogy is to someone who knows there's a vein of gold in mountain but needs capital to buy the site, drill into the mountain, and mine and refine the gold. How do you allocate a share in the profits to the person who identified the possible value, and the entity that invested in extracting the gold?

We've always known there's gold in out of print books, but we have to give credit to the capitalists who figured out how to mine them and restore their value. And with credit comes profit, and we should not begrudge it as long as a reasonable amount of it is shared. Those that think it's unreasonable have only to opt out.

I have no stock in Google, but I own stock in E-Reads, which in its humble googly way is mining out of print books and restoring their lustre.

Blue Tyson wrote on August 20, 2009 at 9:08 am

Anonymous,

How about if we don't, then no one will do it before the Heat Death of the Universe.

The current publishers are too amazingly hopeless to even provide digital versions of their current work let alone their backlists – even if they have the information they need on them.

The information there is way more important than any whining publisher or author.

Kind of poetic justice to see someone do an end-run around one of the 'let's extend copyright again' participatns.

Anonymous wrote on August 20, 2009 at 9:55 am

This is a little disingenuous, since Scott Gant, the lawyer who is filing the objection, doesn't have an out-of-print book. It's his book, and his objection is that 1. Google is threshing and doing all that Red Hen stuff in his land, and 2. that the lawyers who are allowing Google to continue threshing on land he never abandoned appear to be lawyers for Author's Guild, not lawyers for the named author plaintiffs, meaning the largest class of members out there is simply unrepresented.

It is simply not true that the person objecting to the settlement is doing so because he gave up something of value. His book is still in print.

Don't get me wrong. Google is providing a valuable service. But there are serious issues with this settlement, and the ones that Gant raises–that the parties here have failed to provide actual notice to rights holders, that the settlement class was enlarged beyond Google's initial threshing, and that members of the class are unrepresented by the named plaintiffs–are serious issues that go to the fairness of the settlement.

Maybe next time you could, you know, read the objection first?

And maybe you can answer me this question: how on earth will Scott Gant, a partner at a major law firm, who gave up his chance to opt out of the settlement, and who undoubtedly spent hundreds of hours crafting an objection in a very complex case, for which he will receive no compensation–how on earth is he going to make money by filing his objection?

He doesn't get attorney's fees, because he represents himself. He doesn't get payment from Google because he is trying to scotch the deal. And he gives up rights to his in-print book.

Where's the money?

Andrew Wheeler wrote on August 20, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Google doesn't own the field; the authors do.

A better metaphor is that Google is combine harvester on the plains of Nebraska, a gigantic, overwhelming piece of high technology that will roll right over that field (owned by the author), harvest what it can find, and sell that off.

It's trying to argue that it has the right to harvest fields merely because it has a big harvester, but not all of the field owners (authors, once again) agree with that.

At base, the problem a lot of people have with Google's actions in this case, and the particular settlement, is that Google's point of view seems to be that, simply because it's possible for them to do something, because of their size and reach, it's right for them to do it. It's the difference between "Don't be evil" and "If we do it, that means it's not evil."

Anonymous wrote on August 20, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Richard,

I still want some of what you are on!

Your piece is so full of assumptions that I could use it to strain the vegetables. You write completely from a commercial viewpoint; but copyright is about far more.

You also make a serious assumption, within your argument, about the commercial value of orphan works. Quite some crystal ball you have.

If you examine the actual Google situation you would know Google expect the income that matters to come from the the advertising placed in search visits. *That* is the big money in orphan works [well, when the economy picks up].

No mention of sharing that…or do you know something the rest of us don't?

Joseph Harris in the UK – and not so anonymous…

Deborah Blake wrote on August 20, 2009 at 4:58 pm

Holy crap.
Well, this is a great slant on a difficult topic. Such vitriol in response, oh, my. I think the Little Red Hen is currently hiding under the bed.

Richard–thanks for giving us a new view on the subject (brilliant as always, she said, not sucking up at all). I will admit (thus opening myself up to tomato-based projectiles, no doubt) that I signed the settlement. I saw no likelihood of my books being otherwise "out there" once my publisher decided to be done with them. I certainly wasn't going to print them myself.

Deborah Blake (Mindy Klasky's not-at-all-anonymous friend)…ducking before the next volley hits

Blue Tyson wrote on August 20, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Andrew,

That was my point re: copyright extension, etc. Publishing industry etc. do that because they can get away with it, not because it is right. Then, complaining when they are on the other end.

Richard Curtis wrote on August 20, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Thanks, Deborah. You get used to the taste of tomatoes after a while. It's washing them out of your hair that's the problem.
RC

Deborah Blake wrote on August 21, 2009 at 3:57 am

Actually, it isn't the tomatoes in my hair I object to…they go so well with the beer! But the ducking…oh, my, it gets exhausting. On the other hand, I'm guessing you know that

It never ceases to amaze me (which undoubtedly says something about either my character or my intellect, or both) that people can't have a simple discussion/disagreement without getting angry and personal.

BTW–completely off the topic–I finally got to meet Mindy in person at RWA nationals. She is even more wonderful close-up than she is via email The first night there, I had dinner with her, Jeri Smith-Ready and Maria V. Snyder. Heaven!We got to spend lots of time together, and it was the highlight of my conference [well, aside from the amazing workshop I took on Turning Points with the fab Jennifer Crusie, and the requests for fulls I got from Adam Wilson and Rose Hilliard. Those were pretty good, too ]

Nice to chat with you again after all this time!

Anonymous wrote on October 28, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Richard Curtis is not a lawyer and therefore has absolutely no idea what he is talking about in endorsing the now defunct piece of nonsense that was the Google Book Settlement.

17 Comments - “Google Settlement Under Attack for Making Treasure out of Trash”