Comments on: The Oxford University Press on the Google Book Settlement http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/the-oxford-university-press-on-the-google-book-settlement/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:05:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mags http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/the-oxford-university-press-on-the-google-book-settlement/comment-page-1/#comment-1093271 Mags Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:56:21 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/?p=24480#comment-1093271 Well, sure. But a book from 1900 is in the public domain, no question. It's great that Google is giving free access to these things, and if they want to resell them in hard copy or e-format, that's their prerogative. My objection as an author is to Google claiming <i>exclusive</i> rights to sell scans of orphan works. Why should they have exclusive rights to these books? Will another person be able to take the same book off another library's shelf, scan it, and sell it? And if not, why shouldn't they have that right if Google has it? That's what wasn't clear and what was disturbing--also that, once a book goes out of print, the author seems to lose a portion of control over that scan. I never had an objection to Google offering partial access to a scan of my book (which is not out of print, yet) with a link to purchase it. I have purchased such books after having partial access to them on Google Books, and it's a great "give them a taste" bit of advertising. It's a shame that I had to pick all or nothing--to not allow any access, or allow access to all of it, with Google making the profit. They need to either get the copyright law changed in regard to orphan works or deal with the horrible system we have. The proposed "solution" in the settlement is no solution at all. In this Google and Disney are at loggerheads and the fallout will be interesting to observe. Well, sure. But a book from 1900 is in the public domain, no question. It’s great that Google is giving free access to these things, and if they want to resell them in hard copy or e-format, that’s their prerogative. My objection as an author is to Google claiming exclusive rights to sell scans of orphan works. Why should they have exclusive rights to these books? Will another person be able to take the same book off another library’s shelf, scan it, and sell it? And if not, why shouldn’t they have that right if Google has it? That’s what wasn’t clear and what was disturbing–also that, once a book goes out of print, the author seems to lose a portion of control over that scan.

I never had an objection to Google offering partial access to a scan of my book (which is not out of print, yet) with a link to purchase it. I have purchased such books after having partial access to them on Google Books, and it’s a great “give them a taste” bit of advertising. It’s a shame that I had to pick all or nothing–to not allow any access, or allow access to all of it, with Google making the profit.

They need to either get the copyright law changed in regard to orphan works or deal with the horrible system we have. The proposed “solution” in the settlement is no solution at all. In this Google and Disney are at loggerheads and the fallout will be interesting to observe.

]]>