The settlement lets US publishers decide which works should, or should not, be in Google's library.
This settles one of the main objections to the library project which planned to scan every book unless publishers and authors specifically objected.
"We are pleased that this settlement addresses the issues that led to the litigation," said Tom Allen, head of the AAP in a statement.
Webwork
7:21 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)
. . and thusly the end of the it's better to ask forgiveness than permission era began.
ken_b
9:18 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)
The detailed terms of the agreement between Google and the AAP have not been made public.
Why? What are they hiding?
Leosghost
9:31 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)
Probably that it does not apply to anyone who is not a member of the AAP..( including all those non USA authors ) and so Google will continue scanning and copying their books without asking for permission..
lucy24
10:17 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)
Why? What are they hiding?
Standard clause in court settlements. You get more money in exchange for agreeing to keep your mouth shut.
Sgt_Kickaxe
11:24 pm on Oct 4, 2012 (gmt 0)
The public is apparently not supposed to know HOW publishers can "decide which works should, or should not, be in Google's library", the scanning continues.
Angonasec
1:02 am on Oct 5, 2012 (gmt 0)
One of the unintended consequences Greedy Google grabbers caused.
I notified an author friend that G had copied his books into their database and put them online.
He was stunned, and contacted his US publishers, they decided to re-publish all his OOP titles. He wrote back to me very pleased to get them back into print.
graeme_p
2:35 am on Oct 17, 2012 (gmt 0)
Angonsec, I would say that is a foreseeable consequence. Free copies generates interest, which generates sales.
Some authors report very good results from using free licences on some (or even all) books: Cory Doctorow comes to mind - and that was with books that are in print anyway.
