I opted out of the Google Book Settlement for the same reason I became a vegetarian: not for my personal well-being, but because I couldn’t stomach the exploitation of innocent creatures.
Sometimes I worry that compassion fatigue has set in, now that everyone knows about the Google Settlement, by which the internet supremo (annual profits of $21.79 billion) seeks to ‘streamline’ the copyrights of authors (whose annual profits rarely trouble the tax man).
And if Google does get away with a ‘peaceful liberation’ of the frontiers of copyright, what next? History teaches us that appeasing Google will only inflate Google’s power. In a darkened future, Google might end up deciding which literature is fit to live – the criterion logically being whether its continued existence is profitable to Google – and which literature is to face … well, another fate.
But who cares?
After all, the only people who stand to be hurt are authors?
I believe not. Something that seems to be largely forgotten is that whatever is taken away from authors by Google might also be ‘liberated’ from publishers and booksellers. Google’s streamlined access to copyrighted works will inevitably – because of the complications and obscurities about what constitutes ‘an edition’ or 'an orphaned work' – include books in print, books that are in publishers’ warehouses and in bookshops.
What do we authors and publishers and booksellers have to help us in this situation? We don’t have might or much money, but we have wit. And creativity. Even if Google were to devour all our rights and spew them out digitally on flat screens – we still have a trump card, an option, a way forward.
This is for the publishers to make printed books that are indispensable to people’s happiness. Printed books can survive if we emphasise and reinforce the positive difference between on-your-screen and in-your-hand.
How to do this?
Not with price. Each printed book is a palatable pellet that distils years of work by many individuals: writer, illustrator, designer, editor, copyeditor, picture researcher, publisher, production team, printer, transporters, warehousers, sales reps and booksellers. All these people physically and mentally handle the printed book along its way. Therefore a printed book can never compete on cost against an automated free download, with the ‘sale’ supported by online advertising.
So the way forward – for those who want to preserve printed books – is to emphasise the value and desirability, rather than cheapening the price.
Beautifully produced books are easier for booksellers to hand-sell to three-dimensional human beings, many of whom, bless them, still love to feel a book in their hands, turn the pages, sniff the paper, and display them proudly on a shelf, curl up with them, take them to bed, even.
It really makes sense. Are books not the pathway to the imagination? Shouldn’t that pathway be a delight to go along? Shouldn’t it appeal to the senses? Shouldn’t it show, not tell, about the promise of pleasure inside the covers?
My background is in book packaging. I’ve spent most of my professional life designing
Hurrah for this ruling!
Scott Turow's comment is the best -- recognizing that we have the wonderful opportunity now to provide access to otherwise out of print books. I guess for now it's a matter of figuring out how exactly that's going to happen -- I love the judge's comments and how thorough they are. Very excited about where this might go.
Wow! Between Judge Chin's rejection today and the Supremes refusing to overturn the Eminem case yesterday, I have hope that the justice system will actually enforce artist's rights.
Fascinating. My former employer closed our library because "everything is going to be available on Google". I found their wholesale copying, without permission, to be horrifyingly arrogant (as Judge Chin quotes, their attitude has been "so sue me.")
I hope they convert to an opt-in and this does not end up at the mercy of Congress, because Google can afford to pay lots of lobbyists, and it is unlikely Congress will devote the care and attention to the rights of artists that Judge Chin has.
Regarding moving to digital, a great read, I'm wondering how agents will transition into the digital world. Konrath talks about E-stributors who would then work for a 15% fee, but would in the process handle marketing for digital authors.
Could you see yourself doing this? Working on book covers, jacket copy, even web presence and all of that?
Also Konrath mentioned selling one of his short stories on Amazon and making about $30,000 in a year. Amazing.
But my question comes at price point. When we are talking impulse buys, does quantity matter? If a short story is short but sweet can it stand to be priced at $.99 next to a novel?
I wonder how buyers would react to that?
Despite fariness in the market place (other companies wanting to steal copyrigted work as if it were public domain and profit from it), "opt in" is the only reasonable protection of an author's copyright. I own my out-of-print books and when I die all google has to do is pretend they couldn't get in touch with my heirs and they can steal my books for their OWN profit. This would make copyright meaningless in the U.S. Thank you, Judge Chin. God bless you, Judge Chin.
This court case, the rise of e-readers - it's all making me think long and hard about what it means to be a writer, and the relationship between form and content. I think I'm okay with transition in writing formats (I think). I've always written, always will, so I'm obviously going to have to cultivate some flexibility in order to survive in the future.
But rights... that's essentially the foundation of how writers make a living. I don't feel so flexible on that.
Well, so much for Eisler's fans who don't want to buy a Kindle or an iPad, but a hard copy book. And so much for the libraries...
A stunning reversal! I'm glad to see Chin's ruling. Opt-in is what it should've been from the very beginning. And I'm excited to hear about Amanda Hocking's huge new publishing deal. :) Looking forward to what the books are about!
I'll be interested to see how things work out for Eisler. He'll likely see his PB sales drop (esp. if they're only available as a POD online order, though that doesn't mean libraries/bookstores couldn't still order), but within a couple of years, the ebook market will likely continue to grow as it has been. Half a million is a lot, but he's given himself a lot of freedom to experiment as he pleases.
Absolutely, which is why this is the kind of thing that the LOC should be doing, not Google. Just because Google chose to do it doesn't mean they should be allowed to claim the copyrighted works of others as their own to sell as they like.
Hi there Kristin! I have a question for you (given the status of this post) and I understand if you don't have time to answer it, but it's something I've been very curious about.
If you self-publish through Amazon like Hocking, can you still attempt to query agents with the novel? I would think that Hocking was offered the deal because of her success, but if a novel had moderate success could you take it off the Kindle market and attempt to land an agent for the project?
Thank you for your time!