Google violating copyright, authors say
0 
According to the settlement, if the author rejects Google's right to scan, he or she should appeal before Jan 5, 2010. Authors should approach Google authorizing the scanning and get the compensation before June 5, 2010.
But Zhang said this settlement is not acceptable to Chinese writers.
"First of all, Google violated Chinese writers' copyright. It doesn't make sense for them to set a deadline for Chinese writers to protect their interests.
"Secondly, the company should show a clear attitude to admitting its infringement and then negotiate with Chinese authors sincerely," he said.
The US often criticizes China's inefficiency in protecting property rights, Zhang said.
"But you see what their company is doing in China? Many of our writers are infuriated," Zhang said.
Zhang Kangkang, a prominent writer and also vice-president of the Chinese Writers' Association, said she was "surprised" and "angry" at Google's copyright infringement.
"It's one-sided agreement to scan the work without permission from the author. It is illegal to enjoy the writer's work in the name of knowledge sharing," said Zhang, whose books have been scanned by Google.
Chen Cun, another well-known Chinese writer who lives in Shanghai, said Google is "day-dreaming" if it wants to buy copyright from him for $60.
"The price should be set by both sides. It is impossible to buy an object with your bid only," he said.
Google Books is planning to turn millions of books into electronic literature available online.
Google's head of Print Content Partnerships in Britain, Santiago de la Mora, earlier said that Google is solving one of the big problems in the print world - that some books are pretty much dead in the sense that hard copies can no longer be found.
"We're bringing these books back to life, making them more visible to 1.8 billion Internet users in a very controlled way," de la Mora said.
However, Google Books is facing big legal problems in the US, Europe and elsewhere around the globe over the issue of copyrights.
Comments