Seems like everyone and their uncle has opinion on Google Print, Google's plan to index massive libraries of books and make them searchable through the Internet for free. As a published author, I feel like I can speak with some sort of purpose towards this issue.
First and foremost, let's review what has people so up in arms. It's copyright law, plain and simple. The publishers don't like the idea of someone giving everyone access to their books' contents (simplifying a bit, but this is their basic argument). They say that it violates their copyright on books and Google has no right to do it. Further, they state that Google will be making money off of this search while they will not, and that makes them angry. They say that Google is effectively copying their works without permission and using it for profit. I think this is a stretch.
I'll probably incur the wrath of writers and publishers everywhere for saying this, but I think Google is in the right here. Are they being overly arrogant about it? Yes. Should they have discussed their plans with publishers before they started? Yes. Is what they're doing illegal or in violation of copyright law? I don't think so. Here's my rationale.
Copyright law is intended to protect the copyright holder from someone else copying and either giving away or selling their intellectual property thus affecting sales of the original. I can't photocopy a Harry Potter book and resell it; that would be copyright infringement. The publishers' main complaint seems to be that Google is copying an entire book without permission. The difference is that Google isn't giving away the book or selling its contents, it's indexing them so that others may search through books. You cannot print out a copy of the entire book through Google Print, which may actually entice you to buy the book outright.
There's even mention in copyright law about how it is legal for a library or archive to make one copy of a work so long as it is freely available to the public and not for sale. One could argue that Google Print falls under this exclusion.
The other argument from the publishers is that Google will be making money off of this but the publishers will not. Arguably, the publishers will because people will know that their book contains information they need, and therefore they must buy it. And why shouldn't Google make some money off of it? They've spent countless man hours, written software, and set up servers to handle all the traffic they will get. Don't they at least deserve to make some money for the service they're providing?
Overall, I think that the publishers are mostly upset that they didn't think of the idea first. I'm sure both sides can see the benefit of working with the other, as this could turn out to be a hugely useful research tool for people and a very successful marketing program for publishers. I mean, no more using that crappy search engine that most libraries across the country have? Sounds like a bright future to me.
Comments
FireFoxMan says:
So, what happens when some smart guy figures out how to hack GooglePrint, so that they can get the entire text of a book? The plan for now is that you only get, say, the 5 lines that surround your search term, right? Well, if you can OCR that, go back 5 lines, and redo the search, you could recursively get the entire book.
Libraries have the physical limit, realistically, only one person can physically possess your book at a time. If I can hack Google and get an entire digital copy, the only thing left is the desire to have the dead-tree version, which isn't that compelling.
Luis Tello says:
I think Google is going down a slippery slope. I agree with FireFoxMan. There will definitely be hacks coming out. But in the end the courts will decide if this is legal.
needy says:
hi guys, just find out the way to read the whole book, will you.?
Nicholas C. Zakas says:
I think I'll stay on the right side of the law for now. :)
No further comments allowed for this posting.