3

The Wall Street Journal has a piece on the Google Book Search settlement. While the article briefly mentions the complaints from authors and librarians over the terms of the deal, it largely focuses on the problem of orphaned works.

The problem is "orphan works," a phrase that refers to books still under copyright but no longer supported by publishing efforts. These books are in a netherworld where the rights holders cannot easily be found by anyone who wants to distribute the books, because no ownership records are kept. This empty property right is the ultimate fate of most books published in the U.S., even now that digital copies are so easy to maintain, search and share. The Google settlement thus brings back millions of books that had been lost.

It talks about Lawrence Lessig’s suggestion that Congress should return to a periodical registration renewal requirement, so that authors who did not renew their works would let them fall into the public domain. Says Lessig, "The consequence very quickly would be a registry with a clear list of property rights owners.”

On one hand, giving Google exclusive access to all these out-of-print works (meaning that any would-be competitor must 1) shell out the capital to scan copies of the book itself and 2) wait to get sued like Google so it can forge a similar settlement) seems like a bad idea. On the other hand, Google did put in the time and effort to scan and index those books on its own, and the availability of orphaned works will benefit the public greatly.

It would be best if Congress could just fix our broken copyright system, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

 
3