Orphaned books scans/text available via open source project

[aburt]

Here's a half-baked thought: In the Google Books Settlement why not require that Google place the unclaimed books into a non-profit, open source project status? That is, anybody — not just Google — could make use of the scans and text.

I've written up a detailed description of this idea here: http://aburt.com/googlebooks.ht

This topic is for comments on that article. (If highly suggest reading that article linked above first to see what all I have in mind, thanks.)

What do you all think of the idea?

[alissagrosso]

This makes complete and total sense to me. They certainly don't belong to Google, and since no one is sure who they belong to why not make them available to everyone?

[TerishD]

There is a problem with any default storage, such as a non-profit, open source project status. The problem is removing it. If I, the author of a book put there, claims my work, who is going to assure that it is removed? Who is going to track down all the people that have 'taken' my book?

Personally, I believe that the 'it takes time to find the authors' is an attempt for Google to put EVERYTHING into a non-profit, open source project status where they can profit from it. They should thus be disallowed from putting ANYTHING into such a place. I further believe that there are enough people writing books to keep the scanners at Google quite busy collecting and storing those documents where everyone can make a modest profit. Google does not need to worry about the 'orphaned' books. Should anyone desire that an 'orphaned' book be accessible, they should have the incentive to find that author and give him/her the credit they deserve.

[aburt]

There is a problem with any default storage, such as a non-profit, open source project status. The problem is removing it. If I, the author of a book put there, claims my work, who is going to assure that it is removed? Who is going to track down all the people that have 'taken' my book?

My answer to that would be the license agreement. Right now, most popular books (and a lot of obscure ones) are already out in the pirate channels. (Bear in mind I'm the former chair of SFWA's Copyright Committee and ePiracy Committee, so I know a fair bit about piracy.) If someone wants to pirate a book -- they will. They do.

What's at stake here with the google settlement is not piracy, but legal uses; and the backbone of legal uses are people who choose to abide by the law. So if the license agreement says, "Every three months you need to check the Recently Claimed list of books and cease using those," then non-pirate users will abide by that. (Pirate users will, as ever, ignore it, so we can ignore them for the purpose of this discussion. )

Personally, I believe that the 'it takes time to find the authors' is an attempt for Google to put EVERYTHING into a non-profit, open source project status where they can profit from it. They should thus be disallowed from putting ANYTHING into such a place. ... Google does not need to worry about the 'orphaned' books. Should anyone desire that an 'orphaned' book be accessible, they should have the incentive to find that author and give him/her the credit they deserve.

That was the original position that the AAP and AG took. Then they settled. In other words, the AG & AAP decided to allow unclaimed works to get used. The judge still has to approve this, but it seems likely (to me anyway) that the settlement will permit google to use these unclaimed works.

My position is that, for however many unclaimed works google gets to use [be it zero or tens of millions], google should not have a monopoly over them. If the judge, AG, and AAP are going to allow the use of unclaimed works, they should be in an open status and not in google's hands alone. (If the judge decides using any book requires have permission first, then this particular point is moot.)

[aburt]

Here's an interesting link I found: http://blip.tv/file/3179960

This is a powerpoint of a talk by Lawrence Lessig (one of the Creative Commons guys and a Stanford / Harvard professor of copyright law). The topic is about US copyright law being too restrictive. It relates to the google books discussion and references it. Well worth watching.

[RhodyDave]

I prefer the Google plan as it would apply only to orphaned works. My concern with the open source idea is how that would be implemented. It takes a phenomenal amount of resources (time, money, technology, etc.) to take on such a project. Google would be able to provide all necessary resources, as well as a perfectly executed means of making the material available to a worldwide audience.

As has been suggested, if an author wants to remove his work from the archives, it would be a simple thing to do for a company like Google. Alternatively, if it goes open source, the logistical issues of managing such an archive would be nightmarish.

I have no issue with Google making some sort of profit off of such an archive. The contribution to the collective library is immense, and the benefits immeasurable.

[aburt]

My concern with the open source idea is how that would be implemented. It takes a phenomenal amount of resources (time, money, technology, etc.) to take on such a project. Google would be able to provide all necessary resources, as well as a perfectly executed means of making the material available to a worldwide audience.

My suggestion would require google to host the open-source-accessible files. (Image files of page scans, xml of text and metadata.)

Then if I were a developer, I could create a project (book reader or whatever) that pulls the pages from google's server. For example, some HTML might look like<img src=http://google.com/books?bookid=1234&page=42> to display the scanned image of page 42 of book #1234.

Or I could choose to download and host the stuff myself. (So long as I build in some way to honor the license agreement that I'll quit displaying book 1234 if it gets put on the list of claimed books.)

My problem with google as a monopoly on who can see what and how they'll see it is that I'm not convinced google will "perfectly execute" on this as you put it. What if I want to build a better book viewer? Can't.

If google shares it, then google can do their "perfect" interface, but also, anyone else can do one that suits their needs better. I'm talking about the data being openly available in a manner a developer could easily use. Thus there isn't the need for huge budgets etc.; a guy in a basement can write a different viewer, or use it for artistic purposes, or whatever. If nobody sets up a project to use it, so be it.

Since google broke the law to obtain all this data, I don't think it's an unreasonable part of their punishment that they have to share it. (It also forwards their own stated goal of wanting to have "a hundred such services.")

[RhodyDave]

Your point is well taken. If Google is the archive for these books, it would be a good idea as you say, to make the data shared/available to other sources. But this leads to new questions, like who would these sources be, and what controls/restrictions would be placed on how they disseminate the books?

The courts will be tied up with Google's appeal in the antitrust suit for some time, so would a third-party be able to provide these works in the interim? Maybe a Microsoft-Google partnership would be one solution? Imagine that.

[Diana Kimpton]

Although your suggestion is an interesting one for books that are truly orphaned - that is books for which no copyright holder can be found after a diligent search - you are muddling them up with unclaimed books in the Google database. There are many reasons why a book may not be claimed - the author may not have heard of the Google Book Settlement, they may not realise they are part of the class, they may not want to give their personal details to Google, they may not realise the book is on the database because it's a duplicate entry for a book they have already claimed or they may have opted out of the settlement because they don't want to have a commercial deal forced on them by a US court.

I have more than 100 editions of my books on the database. My name is clearly listed as the copyright holder in every copy and a Google search of my name shows up my website, complete with contact details, as number 1. No one has any reason to treat any of my books as orphaned just because I haven't jumped through all the hoops required by the GBS.

[aburt]

Although your suggestion is an interesting one for books that are truly orphaned - that is books for which no copyright holder can be found after a diligent search - you are muddling them up with unclaimed books in the Google database. There are many reasons why a book may not be claimed - the author may not have heard of the Google Book Settlement, they may not realise they are part of the class, they may not want to give their personal details to Google, they may not realise the book is on the database because it's a duplicate entry for a book they have already claimed or they may have opted out of the settlement because they don't want to have a commercial deal forced on them by a US court.

I understand your point, and it's a valid one, but it's independent of what I suggested, since the settlement as written already gives that power to Google. My suggestion is that whatever Google gets, so should others. (No more and no less. If the judge doesn't allow it for Google then it wouldn't be allowed for anyone else either.)

I have more than 100 editions of my books on the database. My name is clearly listed as the copyright holder in every copy and a Google search of my name shows up my website, complete with contact details, as number 1. No one has any reason to treat any of my books as orphaned just because I haven't jumped through all the hoops required by the GBS.

But Google will treat them as orphaned based on the current settlement. If you opt out of the settlement, Google may or may not remove your books if you tell them to -- but "telling them to" remove your books is a process that amounts to much the same thing as claiming them. Copyright law is clear that having to tell them not to use your book is not permitted. The judge may allow it nonetheless.

My proposal has nothing to do with that. It simply says, If Google can do XYZ with a book where the author hasn't said no, then others besides Google should get those same rights.

I know what you're saying -- nobody should get to use your book. I'm saying that if the judge does allow Google (because it's good for the world or whatever reason he gives), it shouldn't be restricted to just Google. If the judge says Google can't do it, end of discussion.