Comments on: Why the Google settlement is anti-author—and why writers deserve four more months for opt-outs and objections

By: Steve Jordan

Steve Jordan — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:17:46 +0000

Christine, go to the wiki on “proposed Google settlement” for details and references.

This may not affect me directly, as my work is not “in print,” and therefore obviously will not be scanned by Google’s systems. However, if Google’s plan is okayed, I can imagine its being extended down the line to digital works as well.

BTW, Mike: If you felt “Opt-out” was such a good idea, couldn’t you have provided us with details and a link to do so? If you have these, please share.

By: Christine

Christine — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:08:39 +0000

It’s so extremely obviously unfair, I don’t know how anyone can be confused about that unless they’re one of those who thinks it’s ok to trample other people’s rights.

To be anywhere near fair, they would have to contact each and every author and ask them to OPT IN.

The opposing side paying the author’s lawyers $30 million for a settlement in their favor? How is this legal?? I am extremely disappointed to know that money can buy Google laws unto itself that trample on other people’s rights.

By: Logan Kennelly

Logan Kennelly — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:10:08 +0000

You have my ear and have done a good job of explaining the ways in which people can lose their voice in a crowd of millions. However, I am still unclear on your stance.

_Why_ is this settlement anti-author? Do you have a better proposal for allowing Google to reduce the loss of culture while respecting the wishes of the authors that don’t wish to be involved?

It does seem odd that the defense has declared before the settlement that it will pay for its own prosecution.