As I was getting ready to write my blog post today, I do what I often do: procrastinate. I spent some time surfing the Internet, checking out some sites that I regularly read in the hope of maybe finding some inspiration or something interesting to kill some time. Well, I definitely found something interesting: the Google Books settlement that was proposed in 2008 has been rejected. Some of you may have heard about the settlement before, and some of you may have no idea what I’m talking about. But this is a huge news story in the publishing industry, and rightfully so. Since I am in the publishing industry (albeit on the sidelines now that I am a freelancer), I am hugely interested in how this story is going to play out, so I thought I would bring it to your attention today.

A little backstory for those who are unaware of the situation: Google began scanning and digitizing books from several libraries back in 2004. The goal was to allow the texts to be searchable on Google, and also for Google to be able to sell ad space on the same page as the text. The Authors Guild sued Google, saying that the practice of scanning books that were out-of-print but still copyright-protected contravened copyright laws in the US. A few years into the case, the Authors Guild agreed to a controversial settlement that would have allowed Google to continue with its Google Books project. The settlement permitted Google to have control over orphaned texts, which are books with no clear copyright holder, and as such those books could be displayed alongside books that are in the public domain (whose copyrights have expired). A number of authors and companies objected to the settlement, saying that it paved the way for Google to have massive control over these books and would essentially create a monopoly, since companies like Amazon and Microsoft would have to license these books from Google.

The New York judge who rejected the settlement said that the settlement “…would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case.” So for now, at least, Google’s scanning and digitizing of books is on hold, until a new settlement can be reached and approved (or forever, depending on what happens next).

So what does this all mean for the reading public? I know there are probably a number of people who are lamenting this decision, because it means that they will not be able to access some of the books they want to read, or perhaps they feel that Google Books would have allowed them to discover new authors without having to shell out any money. I do agree that books in the public domain should be accessible to everyone, especially in light of recent budget cuts to libraries in many countries (the UK is a prime example). But at the same time, I really don’t like the idea of Google brazenly copying and scanning books without having to get permission from the author first. The settlement was based on an opt-out policy, which meant that Google had control over texts until the copyright holder got in touch with them and told them otherwise. With an opt-in policy, something the judge suggests in this case, authors would sign up to have their books scanned and digitized, and this idea seems much more amenable to me. Of course, the opt-in policy is much less attractive to Google, because it removes the orphaned books which could be quite lucrative.

There is obviously much more to come in this story, and I for one am curious to see how (or whether) the Authors Guild and Google can come to a resolution. What do you think? Did the judge make the right decision? How do you think the publishing industry should proceed in this relatively new age of digital books?