My friend Pat McNees runs a website with good information for writers and editors. She recently posted links to various opinions about the Google settlement. I have one quibble with her section on this topic: she implies that you can trust the word of Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild.
“If you were alarmed by Lynn Chu’s piece in the Wall Street Journal (Google’s Book Settlement Is a Ripoff for Authors: ‘Why allow a single publisher to throw out a functioning copyright system?’ ) be sure to read this letter to the editor from Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild: The Google Book Deal Will Help, Not Hurt, Authors, which points out essential errors in Chu’s piece.”
Most authors, editors, and agents I know, like Pat, are willing to trust Aiken’s word. If they had studied the settlement with skeptics’ eyes, and consulted with attorneys, they more likely would trust Chu.
First, let’s deal with Aiken’s whopper:
“Ms. Chu likes the marketplace of in-print books that authors and publishers depend on. So do we: The settlement leaves it alone. Authors and publishers of in-print books will be able to participate in the settlement’s programs, but only with rightsholders’ express permission.”
I can’t imagine why Aiken would make such a patently false statement about a central issue. It’s too long to be a typo. What on earth was he thinking?
“Express permission” means “explicitly stated permission.” Any author reading Aiken’s words is likely to accept those words at face value and assume that, without his or her explicitly stated permission, he or she will not be subject to the provisions of the settlement.
Here’s how you get to “participate in the settlement’s programs.” Do nothing. Bam! You’re in. That’s not “express permission.” That’s license by default.
But it’s worse than that because, although the Google settlement gives authors some control over display and other incidentals, if you do nothing, and allow yourself to be lulled by Aiken’s reassurances, you’ve also agreed, by default, to mandatory arbitration (a huge issue that Chu brought up in her op ed but that Aiken never addressed).
Here’s the gist of what you need to know about arbitration: mega corporations love it because they almost always win in any dispute:
“The fine print associated with service agreements from credit card, wireless phone, Internet access, and other service contracts is increasingly likely to include a clause that removes contract disputes from the legal system, subjecting them instead to binding arbitration. Superficially, arbitration sounds like a great way to settle disagreements while avoiding the fees and animosity associated with legal action; arbitrators ostensibly offer an impartial decision quickly and painlessly. But a report issued by the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen portrays the process as heavily slanted towards business, and a Kafkaesque nightmare for individuals.” [emphasis mine – Anita Bartholomew]