So, Google Book Search wants to index the world's books and do it by scanning in as many of those books as they can and make them available for full-text searching.
One response to this is, okay, then they can just ask for permission to scan those books. Part of Google Book Search is the publishers program (now apparently called the Partners Program) which allows publishers to request that their books not be included and to request that they be included as partners, which means that they can participate in the advertising revenue. Partners can also indicate how much of a book a searcher is able to see--basic snippets, whole pages, the whole book
However, there are many many books for which the rights holder is neither obvious or easily contacted. These books are still restricted by copyright and cannot be freely copied or distributed, but the rights holders can't be located to grant permission. Basically these books are simply not available.
Google's approach is to work with libraries to scan these books and include them, contending that the process of tracking down these rights holders would be impossible and also, more radically contending that since their ultimate purpose is a search system where searchers will only see snippets of text and never the entire book (unless permission is explicitly granted through the Partners Program), that they don't need permission to scan the book. Google's argument is that the scanning is a means to an end, that they have rights to perform the end, and therefore the intermediate step is okay too (this is a bold paraphrase of the situation, of course, for more detailed analysis, you might refer to some of the articles cited later).
Google also argues, and I think this is an important argument, that a universal book search must, somehow, be universal or its value is drastically diminished.
Some questions then, about the Google Book Search project. These are questions that the lawsuits may be called upon to solve though whether they can solve them or not, remains a question.
--Is the fact that Google plans to profit from their Book Search critical in determining if this is a project that should be allowed to go forward? Some people have said it might be an acceptable project if done by a government or non-profit organization, but Google will be making money off 'our' books--is that fair?
--There seems little question (to me, at least) that Google Book Search would be a boon for people searching for information. Is the 'greater good' a good enough reason for Google Book Search to go forward?
--Shouldn't creators get paid for what they produce? If yes (and I think most people agree that the answer to this question is 'yes'), how do you balance that with the 'greater good?' Equally important, what if Google Book Search ultimately results in creators getting paid more (because people buy more books, because their publishers opt into the Partners program, etc), does that change circumstances?
--Should creators' rights trump Googles attempts to make a buck? Should creators' rights trump the greater good? Doesn't the greater good also include creators? What if Google Book Search affects their incentive to create? What if (absent Google Book Search) less access or less awareness affects readers' purchase of creators' works, which in turn affects creators' incentive to produce works? How would it be possible to determine answers to these questions?
--If we let Google do this, what's going to be the next step? How will those next steps affect publishers? Creators? Readers?
--Finally, think about this:
There are about 32 million books; 3 million in print, 3 million out of copyright, and the rest of them are still in copyright but out of print; there are very few ways to get to them. (http://paulfrankenstein.org/archives/2005/11/17_live_from_the_public_library.html).
Some of these books could profitably be forgotten forever. But what about the ones that are still valuable and useful?
Google Book Search is clearly still evolving (look at the name changes it's currently undergoing, for example). For additional details and perspectives, you may want to refer to the following articles:
Authors’ Guild v Google: Opt-out is evil, except when we do it. http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/27/authors_guild_v_goog.html. Cory Doctorow. September 27, 2005.
Google Print, in hot water again. http://www.ibiblio.org/pomerantz/blog/?p=288. August 5, 2005.
Microsoft Research DRM Talk. http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt. Cory Doctorow. June 17, 2004.
Google Sued. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003140.shtml. Lawrence Lessig. September 22, 2005.
Google Responds. http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2005/09/google_responds.html. IPcentral.info. James deLong. September 21, 2005
Google Print Debate on Farber's IP List. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/google_print_debate_on_farbers.html. Tim O’Reilly. October 30, 2004.
On the "Google Print Book Search Publisher Partner Library Project Program": How we know Google is not like other companies. http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/002429.html. Siva Vaidhyanathan. November 22, 2005.
Live from The Public (Library). http://paulfrankenstein.org/archives/2005/11/17_live_from_the_public_library.html. Paul Frankenstein. November 5, 2005.
...see part 1 here.
Posted by dcoates at December 02, 2005 12:34 PM