Google Book Settlement again

I have still not quite finished my paper on the Google Book Settlement: my partner has been down with 'flu; perhaps the dreaded swine 'flu, but who knows? Anyway, she's quite a bit better today.

Which left me a bit of time this evening to fill in the Publishers Weekly online questionnaire about the Book Settlement. The deadline for this is 4 August.

The penultimate question is:

In your own words, please explain your position on the settlement

To which I gave the following answer:

As a foreign (UK) author who has not published a book with 'an established American publisher' I am not eligible for membership of the Authors Guild. Yet the Authors Guild seeks to be certified by the court as my representative, and as the representative of authors and authors' estates in virtually every country in the world. It is attempting to opt us all in by default to what amounts to a perpetual non-negotiable immensely complicated multi-clause contract with Google and the new Book Rights Registry (on whose managing board foreign authors will have no representation). Under the terms of the agreement, authors will have no recourse to the courts in case of disputes, but only to arbitration by arbitrators chosen from a pool selected by Google and the Book Rights Registry. Moreover, the settlement agreement, in effect, rewrites existing contracts; for example, it allocates to publishers a share in any revenue from Google's use of the digitised texts, regardless of whether the author has, in fact, licensed electronic rights to the publisher. Also deserving of note is the fact that the settlement, if accepted by the court, appears to place the USA in contravention of the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement by establishing a copyright licensing system for foreign authors.

The above comments do not exhaust my objections to the settlement, but I believe they make my position sufficiently clear.

***

A further objection I have is this: Google's proposal to allow individual consumers to access works 'in the cloud' from their own desk-tops will undoubtedly facilitate widespread piracy (as anyone can see who understands the capabilities of an ordinary PC). I think it likely that this will lead to a destruction of value in copyrights, and make it even harder for authors to earn a living (or even a useful supplement to their incomes).

Google Book Settlement again

I have still not quite finished my paper on the Google Book Settlement: my partner has been down with 'flu; perhaps the dreaded swine 'flu, but who knows? Anyway, she's quite a bit better today.

Which left me a bit of time this evening to fill in the Publishers Weekly online questionnaire about the Book Settlement. The deadline for this is 4 August.

The penultimate question is:

In your own words, please explain your position on the settlement

To which I gave the following answer:

As a foreign (UK) author who has not published a book with 'an established American publisher' I am not eligible for membership of the Authors Guild. Yet the Authors Guild seeks to be certified by the court as my representative, and as the representative of authors and authors' estates in virtually every country in the world. It is attempting to opt us all in by default to what amounts to a perpetual non-negotiable immensely complicated multi-clause contract with Google and the new Book Rights Registry (on whose managing board foreign authors will have no representation). Under the terms of the agreement, authors will have no recourse to the courts in case of disputes, but only to arbitration by arbitrators chosen from a pool selected by Google and the Book Rights Registry. Moreover, the settlement agreement, in effect, rewrites existing contracts; for example, it allocates to publishers a share in any revenue from Google's use of the digitised texts, regardless of whether the author has, in fact, licensed electronic rights to the publisher. Also deserving of note is the fact that the settlement, if accepted by the court, appears to place the USA in contravention of the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement by establishing a copyright licensing system for foreign authors.

The above comments do not exhaust my objections to the settlement, but I believe they make my position sufficiently clear.

***

A further objection I have is this: Google's proposal to allow individual consumers to access works 'in the cloud' from their own desk-tops will undoubtedly facilitate widespread piracy (as anyone can see who understands the capabilities of an ordinary PC). I think it likely that this will lead to a destruction of value in copyrights, and make it even harder for authors to earn a living (or even a useful supplement to their incomes).