The current debate over Google’s proposal to scan millions of “orphan” books – books that are still technically under copyright protection but where the copyright owner cannot be found – defies all logic (leaving aside legalities).
The current copyright laws are absurdly restrictive. Works are (with some exceptions) copyright for 50 years after the death of the author. Why? So the author’s estate can continue to reap a tidy profit? So publishers can continue to profit? This defies logic.
Leaving that aside, the current status of these works is that almost nobody has access to them and nobody is making any money from them, as they are out of print and likely to remain so. Google proposes to make them available to libraries and (for a fee) individuals. So the dispute is over how the profits are to be split up and, secondarily, whether it would be establish a de facto monopoly for Google.
Would the proposed agreement give Google a de facto monopoly? Probably. If Google is prevented from doing it, will anybody else do it? No way. So you can have the agreement and access to millions of books or no agreement and no access to any books. This seems like a no-brainer.
For an extensive summary of the history of this issue and options, see the article by Ben Hollman in law.com’s Legal Technology column.
The current copyright laws are absurdly restrictive. Works are (with some exceptions) copyright for 50 years after the death of the author. Why? So the author’s estate can continue to reap a tidy profit? So publishers can continue to profit? This defies logic.
Leaving that aside, the current status of these works is that almost nobody has access to them and nobody is making any money from them, as they are out of print and likely to remain so. Google proposes to make them available to libraries and (for a fee) individuals. So the dispute is over how the profits are to be split up and, secondarily, whether it would be establish a de facto monopoly for Google.
Would the proposed agreement give Google a de facto monopoly? Probably. If Google is prevented from doing it, will anybody else do it? No way. So you can have the agreement and access to millions of books or no agreement and no access to any books. This seems like a no-brainer.
For an extensive summary of the history of this issue and options, see the article by Ben Hollman in law.com’s Legal Technology column.
Comments