Missing the point here. The whole reason for this Google Books deal is that there are so many books out there where the ownership is murky at best. As a result, these books are unnecessarily kept away from the public. Therefore, if you REALLY don't want ANYONE to read your precious book, you CAN OPT OUT! My complaint here is that Le Guin wants to keep me from reading OTHER authors' works just because she couldn't be bothered to OPT OUT?

I guess it is a good thing that the A List authors aren't involved with this siliness.

Truthfully, I agree with Le Guin and their stand, as much as I would like to see more free literature available.

These authors write for a living. They deserve to protect their copyrighted material, and to be able to earn percentages of sales or whatever contract they have.

Now, if we were in the futuristic world of no money transactions, level economy, along with the problems of poverty and hunger behind us, then it would make sense. But not until.... -kh

This is the author's work, of course they should be allowed to control it.

Copyright law has become wildly amoral, today copyright mostly stands for stealing. The law needs to be seriously redone. They could start by saying when someone dies the copy"right" dies as well, no passing or "selling" it on.

I agree completely. This is their works, their intellectual property. They are loosing out, not Google, who is going to get the advertising revenue for this.

Amy Tan, Garrison Keillor and Elmore Leonard stand to lose a lot more cash on a deal like this, what with them being writers that people have actually heard of.

Who the hell wants to read EarthSea, anyways?

it is not the duty of the creator to hunt down everybody that wants to use their work and tellt hem no, its the party that wants to profit from the use of that work that needs to seek persmission

If you say the copyright dies with the holder, then I foresee a lot of unethical deaths to free-up copyright. Guess that is just really grim of me, but eventhough 0.01% is unethical enough to try, someone will try it.

The problem is length of time of the copyright and abandonment.

IMHO, A copyright should only last 50 years (+50 if currently used) and if abandoned, not produced or sold, should not be extended. Thus an active copyright would live till its 100 years old. An inactive copyright should die at 50 and allow other to reprint/reuse.

i can see why Ursala is upset for the deal would allow google to distrubt works that would wind up meaning the author would lose out on some royalties even if they are going after works whose copy right is found to have no holder. for those books are who writers like Ursala pay their bills .

Its the same argument that goes with music artists, photographers, painters, song writers, etc... Unless they are commissioned to complete the work for someone, or otherwise agree to turn over copyright and ownership, the creator of the work holds legal copyright. This has been through many courts already thru the years. Its a known process. Google wants to skip this process. It wont stand.

The owners of these works have the ultimate say about what goes on with their work.

Artists and others that hold intlellectual rights do no thave to opt out of anything to maintain their rights. The guild is not an industry wide representative for all writers, and can not dictate to anyone what to do with their legal rights.

I love Earthsea, Baby Hulk! I'm not ashamed to buy copies and put money into the hands who lawfully own the rights!

Umm... Ursula K Le Guin is an A+ list author, folks. Are you kidding? She is a luminary in the sci fi/fantasy field. If you care for her works or not, she is an influential figure. I am stunned that people are taking shots at her credentials. Left Hand of Darkness gets her in, and the original Earthsea is a standing classic of the fantasy genre. Please. AND, of course any agreement should put the authors first, not the readers - because if you don't put the author first, soon enough you'll have naught left to read, cuz they''ll all be broke.

I would love to see scans of hundreds of out-of-print books and magazines that would otherwise be impossible to get. I would love to see complete volumes of F&SF, Astounding, Weird Tales, Startling Stories, Marvel comics and many others on CD-ROM. If National Geographic can put out 108 years on 6 discs, what's stopping the others?

Normally you have to ask permission in order to use/sell/whatever copyrighted products. Google, however, did this the opposite way. They just took the rights.. and claims that unless you give them notice by 01.28. they now own the rights to your product (with their compensation system, of course). (Meaning that by keeping silent, you somehow comply by their rules).

Don't blame the authors, blame Disney and other corporations. They got the copyright so fraking extended so that basically Mickey is theirs forever and a day I have a few suggestions.

1. Fix the copyright mess so that it covers the life of the author + 25 years and that is from the day of their death, not added on to the total already granted.
2. Corporations get 100 years total for copyright control from the moment of creation. If they created an iconic representation of a charcter such as Mickey Mouse, that particular icon rmains under their control so there won't be an 'x' rated Mickey cartoons.

3. Establish a definition of abandoned that require at least being out of print for 20 years which would only take effect if that author has not published other works in that time period. This would still require paying royalties on a protected work as established by law. So no declaring as abandoned any work whose author is still publishing or who is lucky to have had a career spanning more than 25 years..

This is Googles equivalent of Negative Billing. It's wrong. The authors are right. It's not Googles work to do with as they please, then maybe throw a crumb to the authors if they feel like it.

I'm sorry but I disagree with those who want to redo copyright law. If I write something, I want those profits and my legacy to be retained by my family and decendents, not some amoral corporation.
I would rather have the devil I know (my family) controlling my legacy than the devil I don't know and certainly will never trust.

Now regarding abandoned works, let corporations purchase a limited use copyright from a public entity dedicated to this, the funds designated to help new writers, or some worthy cause.

Lorenzo this isnt a rewrite this is just updating with the times, the authors can simply opt their works out.
Requiring google to contact each author to get prior permission would be cost prohibitive even for google.

@CD It doesn't matter if it's cost prohibitive or not. That's just business. One should not be assumed to agree with something unless they have actually agreed to it.

See... now this is getting out of hand. Why write and put books into print if you are going to take away the ability to read it. I like to open books and read them... but what if I have broken both my hands in an acident? Do I then ask permission from someone to download a book just so I can read it online instead of opening a paper one. Besides.... look how many trees we have distroyed because of the books we print. I honestly think these authors should take another look at them selves and see they are not as high and mighty as they think.

Avidreader:

People write books because they love to write and they are hoping to make some money doing what they love. Why should someone who spent years writing a novel suddenly find themselves unable to pay their electric bill/water bill/mortgage just because someone wants to read their book for free rather than pay for it as they should?

Why should the author suffer because you broke your hands? Buy the audio book if you can't turn pages. No one owes you free stuff just because you want it that way. If that were true, I'd live in a mansion and drive a Ferarri.

If Google wants to create an online bookstore, with electronic versions of all sorts of books, that's great. I'd love to see all the old classics available. There is some things I've always wanted to read, and simply can't find. A really serious online outlet could have a inventory far beyond any conventional book store. making many out of print books available. But they will have to get not only permission, but a publishing contract, paying the authors what any bookseller would pay. And of course, if the author doesn't like the deal, or the publisher, they don't have to sign, they can go with a different publisher. But if they don't publish anywhere, and nowadays that means electronically, nobody reads the books.

TO CD,

I would guess that you have never created something, or earned a living on your own creativity. Lots of people do. Writers, whether they are writing scifi, music, or anything else, earn livings on their work, including royalties thru-out there lives.

How would you feel if someone came into your house, took your TV, computer, childrens beds without your permission, and decided on their own how they "re-pay" you for stelaing from you? This is the same fight the music industry had with Napster and other P2P sharing services.

Let's be honest here. There is no good will from Google in regards to their intentions. If they can take someone's old shoe, and sell it without it costing them anything, then that's pure profit.

Imbed some advertising and they make even more.

As other's have said more eloquently, it is not the writer's responsiblity to have to police their own rights to their material. If Google wants to reprint them, then they have value and someone should get paid for it.

You cannot overcome Skynet. Resistance is futile. I have you now! (insert your own SF reference here)

photoguyryan you and others seem to be missing the point, that being that google has put into place an "opt out" feature that any author can use all they have to tell goggle is no to displaying their works, thats all.
If this was a complete writeoff of the authors work to allow google to post and earn money without recourse for the authors to restrict it then I would completely support the authors however since there is the optout option I am reluctantly going to side with google.

At least now I have a list of authors I don't need to bother reading since they don't want me to read their books anyways.

TK said it perfectly - a person is an utter moron if they think this is not corporate theft. And in regard to the people who are moronic enough to believe that they have some right to written works of literature with no obligation to the author(s)... well, how about I have the right to simply stroll into where you work, take what you've produced, and get credit/money for it. It is the same, that simple. And I'm shocked that people are actually attacking Ursula's credentials and praising the tripe writers! You are the ones that make up the herd mentality that allows for companies such as Google to get away with such things - and the first to whine when it effects you.

Copyrights were initially designed to be limited monopolies created to encourage the exchange of ideas by entering works of art and literature into the public domain after being given around 15 years to profit from that monopoly.

This all got out of hand has people allowed corporate greed to keep extending, inch by inch, the appropriate 15 year limit to the point where people now talk about these non-tangibles as if they are the exact equivalent to physical objects with "ownership" properties exceeding multiple lifetimes of the mortals who actually create them.

Only people woefully ignorant of history would insist that copyrights "have to" exist or else creative people will cease to create. People have been copying things by hand and rote memory for thousands of years prior to the invention of a copyright which itself didn't come into existence until hundreds of years after the invention of the printing press. In those prior times, human creativity did not suffer for want of a copyright.

Here's a science-fiction themed ponder for copyright monopolists: Eidetic memory is a real phenomenon in the human animal. What are you going to do when technology advances to the point where eidetic memory is active in the majority of the population? People will never have need to buy any song recorded on physical media because they can perfectly recall it from the iPod that is their brain.

People who contend that a copyright monopoly is necessary to stimulate creativity are woefully ignorant of history.

Human beings have been copying things by hand and rote memory for thousands of years before the existence of a copyright law which itself didn't come into existence until hundreds of years after the invention of the printing press. Artistic expression and creativity did not whither and die in those prior times for want of a copyright.

Copyrights were originally conceived as a LIMITED monopoly of around 15 years to encourage the exchange of ideas that would enter into the public domain of discourse after that time. It has been extended inch by inch since then in the service of little more than what amounts to corporate greed turning a limited monopoly of intangible ideas into a "property" right equivalent to that of real goods and one that extends beyond the lifetimes of the mere mortals who actually do the creating.

Shakespeare prospered just fine without dint of a copyright monopoly.

Here's a science-fiction themed ponder for copyright monopolists:

Eidetic memory is a real phenomenon in the human animal. It is not unreasonable to expect that eventually human knowledge will progress to the point where, for most humans, eidetic memory will be activated. They will then need never purchase a song that they hear for free on TV, radio or at the public library as they can replay it perfectly in the iPod that is their head. What will you advocate then?

The world and markets change. If you wish to prosper, adapt.

@Nick Mamatas,

Sorry for the duplication. The first edition didn't seem to take. Pick whichever one you think fits best to keep.

This is pretty stupid people are actually arguing that because some possible day in the far future when money won't be needed justifies blatant coporate theft today.

And as far as the people that think they have a right to take anything they want for free, any idiot knows better then to steal, and trying to justify it just shows your immorality, not your adaptability.

When you stop collecting an income and still go to your job and do it as well as you do now for free, then I might listen to what you've said, till then the fact is google is just stealing to make a bigger profit by saying I took your car but you didn't tell me not to so it is your own fault

Everybody advocating freedom of distribution of intelectual property, you do know google will be makign money off you now instead of the person that made the item right? or do you really think they just want to do a bunch of work for you for free? are you really that ignorant?

The problem with the 'opt out' program is it can be manipulated in Google's favor. They might set up the program so you have to (a) provide legal proof that you are the copyrigt holder and have the legal right to opt out. (b) The author has to opt out for each individual book and (c) they have to do it every year. Then Yahoo can do the same but use a different form so that you can't just submit the same 'opt out' requests costing you more, then another publisher doing the same thing.

Second, what is their fracking definition of a 'abandod' book? It seems to be pretty much whatever google wants it to be.

Now we all know that Google is not planning on spending their money on 300 year old manuscripts but things printed in the last 25 years. They want books they can 'publish' and make a profit at, not a book that will cost them twice as much as they make off it in a dozen years.

1. Make it a opt in for authors still producing works.

2. 1 author=1 option for every book they have written

3. Authors can opt in a particular book of their work, no blanket authorizations.

4. The profit made by 'the Publiser' must be equal to or 1 cent less than the royalty paid to the author.

5. Royalties paid on all books, even those whose ownership is in question.

6. A fee is paid to the original publishing house in recompense for their original work in editing, proof-reading and other wise preparing the book for publishing.

It's not so much about authors wanting to make money from their hard work as it as about other people wanting to make money from it. As an author, I'd be happy to give my work away to any reader who wanted to read it. But to have Google or anyone else make money off selling it as though they just found it lying on the ground one day, THAT'S what's wrong. Too many online business models are based on making people pay for content that the company itself expects to get for free!

to CD. Your kind of thick. Authors already have the right to copyright protection, and dont have to opt out of anything. Google is trying to sidestep apoyright laws that are in place.

@fireniceinc,

You are going the wrong way in time. The idea of a copyright is a relatively recent invention. People have been copying things by hand and rote memory for thousands of years without benefit of the philosophy that somehow it is stealing or in any way equivalent to taking a physical object forcefully from another one's person.

@CAS,

You are aware that even today copyrights are of limited duration and works (even yours) do enter into the public domain eventually where others profit from publishing them at their whim without recourse to paying royalties to the originator?

fireniceinc:

Your analogy of the "I took your car but you didn't tell me not to so it is your own fault " situation fits superbly here. That is exactly what Google is doing.

The onus is not on the copyright holder to withdraw persmission to reprint or copy their works online - it is up to Google to obtain that permission first. Their system is insidious and will hopefully be closed down by the courts soon.

Gallowglass at 11:11 PM ON 01/29/10 said:
> Now we all know that Google is not planning on spending their money on 300 year
> old manuscripts but things printed in the last 25 years. They want books they
> can 'publish and make a profit at, not a book that will cost them twice as
> much as they make off it in a dozen years.

=====
Google has been scanning everything they can find, not just current books.

http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/print_library.html
> The Libraries of Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan, the University of Oxford,
> and The New York Public Library Join with Google to Digitally Scan Library Books and
> Make Them Searchable Online

I look forward to the old abandoned books becoming available again, and the preservation of the past 100 years of printed works.

Opt-out shouldn't have to be done every year, though. And I expect publishers will ensure that current works are excluded.

For older works, even 10 year old pocket books that are no longer in print, this could be an opportunity for the author.