Robert McCrum in an article with the above title in the Guardian, feels strongly that Hachette has become part of a group of publishers who are caving in to Google’s scanning initiative.
Google (motto: “Do No Evil”) insist that they are working for the good of the reader, liberating otherwise moribund texts from the darkness and isolation of library shelves. That’s been its consistent position, but I just don’t buy it, long-term. Never mind the ongoing litigation about the proper remuneration of copyright holders (aka authors), it is inconceivable that, having made this investment and undertaken this extraordinary programme (for that’s what it is), Google will not ultimately seek to extract some commercial advantage. That day has not yet come, but as the ebook revolution gathers momentum in the USA and worldwide, I predict that Google will find a way of “revisiting” the noble, altruistic stance of the GPI [Google Print Initiative].
This is the most excellent news for the wider global public and particularly for readers across the world. Breaking the outrageous stranglehold copyright has held on these works is good in every single sense. The publishing community of course oppose it by reflex because they oppose anything that weakens that choke hold. Now they come out with all kinds of alternatives that they would never ever have done, to stem the tide of liberation for these out of print works that they have held a death grip on for so long. Hurrah.
Link to original article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/nov/22/hachette-google-digital-public-library
Howard, who posted before me, seems under the illusion that copyrights are an “outrageous stranglehold” cooked up by publishers so they can maintain a “death grip” on “out of print” books. Why they’d want to go to so much trouble for books they haven’t even bothered to keep in print seems beyond his reasoning ability. I suspect he’s just another little twit who likes the idea that he can huddle in his mommy’s basement, downloading hundreds of copyrighted books without spending a penny or putting a dent in his send-out-for-pizza budget.
If Google wins this fight, the real losers aren’t giant publishers, such as Hachette. Both seem to have the rather disgusting attitude that getting access (Google) or having printed (Hachette) a physical copy of a book means that they can sweep aside a copyright that’s linked to the long labors of the person who actually wrote the book in question. Both have a rather philistine contempt for creative labor. For Google, books are just bytes. For those executives at Hachette, they’re just Euros.
Both also seem blind to the fact that the Berne Convention was created over a century ago to ban precisely this sort of practice. At that time, authors in one country found their works being pirated in another country where it was technically out of print and unavailable. The Berne Convention also makes no exception for the sorts of excuses that Google is using to justify its actions. The very fact that the Convention specifically states that no registration is required for protection means that Google’s opted-in if you don’t opt out scheme is grossly illegal in almost every country on the planet. That’s not only the law, it’s a treaty obligation and in countries such as the U.S. a treaty obligation outranks legislation.
Google’s scheme is all too obvious. What they want to do is illegal under international treaties and I have no doubt their lawyers know that. By defying Berne and working out these special deals with anyone having enough money to fight them in court, they hope to acquire a monopoly on violating Berne, a monopoly no other corporation will have.
Why? Because if Google really cared about the problems created by out-of-print works and orphaned texts in an Internet age, they’d be busy persuading the world’s leaders that a revision of Berne is necessary. Berne hasn’t been revised since 1979, despite a series of technological advances that are greater than anything that has happened since Gutenberg. Google doesn’t want Berne revised because a revised Berne would be crafted with the rights of all parties involved and would be fair to all parties. In the end, these special little arrangements benefit only Google.
For what it is worth, I was one of seven authors whose letter to the Manhattan court got the Google settlement delayed for six months and provided enough time for what Google was doing to come out into the open. That’s why this debate is still alive and why Google’s nasty little scheme may still be blocked, despite the blunders of these Hachette executives.
Michael –
You had something important to say here. It’s too bad that your ad hominem attack on Howard colored the whole thing in a negative light. I lost respect for you in the first paragraph that you never got back.
My view that the copyright laws have become excessively indulgent to copyrighters is a widely held belief. Content published by creators is often protected for 70 years beyond the life of the creator and used by their children or their estate, who had absolutely no hand in it’s creation, as a cash cow for them and their own children as well as restricting it’s distribution to how they personally chose.
Content that once was published and has gone out of print, that neither the author nor the publisher makes accessible to the public should also have it’s copyright rescinded.
I hardly think these views are extraordinary or revolutionary enough to cause myself to be abused and accused in such as gratuitous and offensive way.
The purpose of copyright is often misunderstood to be a property right when, in fact, it is merely a temporary monopoly granted by government so as to encourage others to do likewise because it is for the betterment of society.
Andrew Carnegie did not believe that his children should be wealthy without creating something like U.S. Steel as he had done so he gave most of his wealth away. Much of that went to establishing libraries in the U.S. and the benefit to society is obvious. So, Carnegie and lots of other people, including myself, agree with @Howard when he implies that copyright should not extend beyond the life of the author.
Corporate publishers talk as if they are protecting hard working authors when, in fact, they are only looking out for the stock holders. They have used the image of the hard working author to enhance their grip on our culture, squeezing every penny out of it that they can.
After listening to Michael Perry, I’m backing Google 100% in this.