Interesting. I'm not sure how realistic that is, converting to an opt-in.
opt-in, there's no reason for AAP itself to get a cut, the actual
copyright holder who's opting in can take the whole thing. To the
extent that AAP itself wanted a cut, that requires opt-out for orphaned
work.
It's interesting to recall that the original lawsuit wasn't really about
selling fulltext, was it? Google wasn't selling full text (opt-in OR
opt-out) when they were sued. The original lawsuit was for the scanning
all by itself, and the providing search with contextual snippets over
the scans.
The scanning/searching alone would be pretty infeasible to do on an
opt-in basis too. The only realistic way to scan large quantities of
books is just to scan em all, not only to scan ones that copyright
holders have opted in to. The whole problem is the difficulty of
identifying the copyright holders or finding them once identified. And
even if you did only scan on an opt-in basis, or scan but only make
available for search-with-snippet-results on an opt-in basis.... the
main value of Google books _search_ was that it covered so much, if it
only covers like 5 or 10% with opt-in, much less useful.
By taking it from a question of scanning/search-with-snippets (which
many thought Google could win on fair use), to an attempt to make an
end-run around copyright law and let both Google and AAP share profits
on monetizing orphaned work full text on an opt-out basis... I think
Chin rightfully stopped this end-run, but now we all kind of lose, as
we've still got no established fair use right to scan-and-search without
a license. (Well, even if the settlement had been approved, _we_
woudln't have that, only Google would have special permission, that
nobody else could get without a similar class action settlement).
On 3/22/2011 4:31 PM, Beacom, Matthew wrote:
> Another snippet from the decision:
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> In the end, I conclude that the ASA is not fair,
> adequate, and reasonable. As the United States and other
> Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 971 Filed 03/22/11 Page 45 of 48
> objectors have noted, many of the concerns raised in the
> objections would be ameliorated if the ASA were converted from an
> "opt-out" settlement to an "opt-in" settlement. ... I
> urge the parties to consider revising the ASA accordingly.
>
> Matthew Beacom
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:18 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Judge Chin rejects AAP/Google settlement
>
> Just came out. Copy of the Judge's decision is here:
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/UsDistrictCourtNyDecisionAuthorsGuildV.Google
>
> Seems rather prosaic, but I'm still reading. No ideas on what comes
> next regarding Google books.
>
> kc
>
Received on Tue Mar 22 2011 - 17:05:29 EDT