The other day, what should I come across but the entire text of my book, The Essential Feature, online and available for free through Google Books.
This book is not out of copyright. Though I don’t earn much on it—just a couple hundred bucks a year—it does represent my labor and, given that I’m about to be unemployed, I do happen to need the money. Evidently Google did unto me as it has done unto untold numbers of other authors who absurdly imagine they should be paid for their product: checked the work out of a library and stole every word of it.
Google has entered into a settlement in a lawsuit over this theft. After looking into it, I decided it’s best to do nothing, rather than to agree to the settlement’s terms. If you enter into the agreement, you may (or may not) receive some pittance as a share of the profit Google reaps by selling your works. However, you lose all future rights to any further claims against Google for its future profits on or future infringement of your copyright. So it doesn’t look like an especially advantageous arrangement. Nor does it appear to be worth the sheer hassle factor involved in trying to enter a claim.
Why bother to write? If someone can come and take your work and profit on it with no more than a polite “screw you very much,” what is the point in existing as a professional writer?
The answer to that, my friends, is “none.” Those of us who enjoy reading books and magazines written on the professional level—as opposed to self-published tomes from amateurs and hobbyists—can say goodbye to that little pleasure. And say hello to another stage in the dumbing-down of America. All you young wannabe writers: shelve that dream and get yourself an MBA.
If you went into a grocery store and stole a head of lettuce or a package of steak, you would be arrested and prosecuted. Same if you went into, say, the Boston Store and lifted a few additions to your wardrobe. Retailers don’t put up with theft. But because the product is words, apparently it’s OK to steal.
Peter Osnos, writing for The Atlantic, concedes that the settlement “provides payment now and procedures for the future that assure the rights of those who create material to benefit from the use of it.” But, he adds,
. . . the accord also—in the view of its critics, led by the Justice Department—gives Google far too much of a role in determining the digital fate of an enormous trove of books; in effect, an immediate virtual monopoly and too much of an advantage going forward. In the year since the agreement was announced, the image of Google as the happy face of all matters digital has turned into something less appealing: a dominant corporate enterprise that has used its collective brilliance in technology and marketing to suppress competition while it prospers as others do not.
So much for “do no harm,” eh?
Meanwhile, the legal wrangling continues. The Department of Justice recently challenged the settlement in view of its significant antitrust implications. As DOJ notes in its filing,
“First, through collective action, the Proposed Settlement appears to give book publishers the power to restrict price competition. Second, as a result of the Proposed Settlement, other digital distributors may be effectively precluded from competing with Google in the sale of digital library products and other derivative products to come.”
Among other things, anyone who does not opt out of the settlement loses their right to derivative uses of their work. This is not inconsiderable. The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, for example, is a spinoff from a magazine article. Because the author of the original piece of journalism retained his copyright in the article, he shared in the profits of the enormously successful book and musical that derived from the first work.
Also at issue are the millions of so-called “orphan works” whose copyright holders no longer exercise their rights. Under the settlement, Google obtains ownership of those rights.
Patent lawyer Gene Quinn eloquently puts the point on this pencil:
To force all those who do not opt out to lose those rights, both with respect to digital distribution and with respect to derivative works is unconscionable. A settlement like this would strip rights away from copyright owners simply because they do not participate in the case or settlement. That would be an enormous taking and redistribution of property rights to a private corporation on an unprecedented level… Make no mistake, the rights are owned and they would be lost through massive redistribution to benefit Google.
Yeah. Like he said!