So the Google book search deal to create the biggest-yet library-cum-bookstore in the sky is officially moribund—at least in its present form. Yesterday, the judge charged with approving the deal for Google’s online e-book offerings gave the settlement parties more time to renegotiate the terms in order to take into account the objections that have been pouring into the court—some 400 so far. As I wrote in my last blog post, a major objection voiced by the Justice Department (among others) is that the deal appears to hand Google a virtual monopoly in digitizing those out-of-print books still under copyright known as “orphan books.” But in recent months, we’ve also heard from a growing number of writers that the deal won’t compensate them fairly for published works placed in Google’s digital book collection. Although the Authors Guild was party to the original settlement, some writers say their interests weren’t represented. The National Writers Union, which represents about 1,500 freelancers, described the deal as “grossly unfair to writers.” In August, the union said the settlement wouldn’t pay authors enough for the works Google had scanned without their permission. “[W]riters whose copyrights were violated might receive a check for between $60 and $300 for each book and $15 per article,” Larry Goldbetter, president of the National Writers Union, objected in an interview with Wired Magazine. “Compared to the number and seriousness of the violations, the amount being offered by Google to each writer is ridiculously low.” “Google is essentially saying. ‘We are going to steal your work and sell it under terms we dictate unless you tell us not to,’” Goldbetter said. “A corporation, no matter how powerful, shouldn’t be able to profit from your work without first contacting you and obtaining your permission in writing.” Back in April, Michael W. Perry, author of “Untangling Tolkien,” argued there hadn’t been enough publicity to let writers know that they would automatically become participants in the deal if they did nothing. Most authors didn’t know that they had to formally “opt out” of the settlement by the initial deadline of May 5 to avoid being bound by the agreement’s compensation rules, he maintained. Compared to the huge publicity surrounding the nation’s transition to High Definition TV, “This settlement is far more radical and yet it has gotten infinitely less attention,” Perry commented on the New York Times “Bits” blog at the time. “As a writer, I personally doubt more than a small minority of authors are aware of its significance.” In April, John Steinbeck’s heir and a group of authors, including Perry, requested a four-month extension beyond that May deadline, a request the court granted by extending it to October 7. The court now plans to hold a status hearing Oct. 7 to see how to proceed from here. The American Society of Journalists and Authors and the William Morris Endeavor entertainment agency also joined the chorus of authors objecting to the settlement. As a freelance writer, I’m often amazed at how much work writers are willing to do (myself included) for little or no compensation. But often it’s because we have little choice in the matter. And writers like us, who work alone as independent contractors, rarely get our interests represented in collective form. Most of the new deal-making around the table this time is likely to focus on the big players. Like Amazon, which wants the opportunity to compete with Google in selling digital versions of the out-of-print books that constitute the heart of 20th Century literature. But perhaps this new round of talks will give authors a second chance to get a better deal as well.