http://chaucer.umuc.edu/blogcip/collectanea/
"At first I was appalled. Especially because the settlement terms provided that the information about who claimed what was going to be kept secret between Google and the publishers/ authors (ie, the [Book Rights]Registry). And equally as bad, if no one came forward to claim a book, as copyright owner, essentially the Registry would keep the money. There are provisions for the Registry to use it for x, y and z, and *if* any is left, it goes to a reading-oriented charity or some such. But I'm not thinking there's going to be any left... What do you think? "Further, Google clearly understood and accepted that this plan was based on an idea I found repugnant: if orphan works don't have owners, by definition, then why is it that the Registry should keep the money that comes in for books that ultimately no one claims? The publishers and authors just don't see orphans as really belonging to everyone in the absence of an owner. They see them as belonging to all the other authors and publishers, but not the public. That really rubbed me the wrong way. After all, it's not the publishers and authors who have collected these books, maintained them, preserved them, and are now making it POSSIBLE for anyone to even have potential to find them and buy them by partnering with Google to make them a part of Book Search. Where do they get off claiming that they are entitled to keep unearned, undeserved revenues to the exclusion of everyone else in the world? " ________________________________________ http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2008/11/01/eff-s-settlement- concerns Comment from: Jim Carlile "Check out clause 6.3 (b). Kind of troubling about what happens if they accidentally sell a public domain work. Quick answer-- they keep the money, and if an individual consumer buys a PD work that should have been free, the rights holder gets to keep the money, too. A recipe for lots of problems-- such as, a huge number of copyright/PD disputes over 1922-1964 works. And there's also no requirement (that I can find) that says Google has to provide downloads for PD works, which means they could end up charging for them, while still providing free online display, which is required by several library agreements. Since most of these books were taxpayer-provided for free, more PD rules should have been implemented."
