| |
Topic: Google Print Library Project
Summary of Proposed Program:
The power of the Internet coupled with the public’s desire to search all possible data sources has created the need for a new understanding of copyright boundaries. Google and the Author’s Guild, in particular, have approached this question of boundaries from different perspectives. What do you think?
| Pros |
 |
Cons |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Free & Wide Searching:
Authors should have their books searchable on-line, so that readers can find them, and maybe even buy them. In a recent Wall Street Journal commentary, writer and publisher of the New York Law School Law Review Carmen Stracher writes,”Google doesn’t propose to scan books and then make the available for free. It intends to scan them in order to make them searchable over the Internet and available for purchase – after paying a royalty to copyright holders. It’s hard to see how authors or publishers can lose.” For authors and publishers, ignorance (of their published writing) is not bliss – it means fewer sales and less recognition. |
|
Free & Wide Searching:
But, since Google makes a copy of the entire work for its database, shouldn't they be required to obtain a license from the copyright holder? “By digitizing mountains of copyrighted books without permission, Google is exercising a renegade notion of eminent domain,” said Nick Taylor, president of the Authors Guild, in his October 2, 2005 letter published in the New York Times. “Google decides what’s good for us and seizes private property to get it done.” Making an unauthorized copy is an unauthorized copy. |
| |
|
|
Free & Wide Searching:
On the other hand, since a Google print search will display only a small portion of the entire book, isn't this just a "fair use" for which no license should be required? “Scanning itself creates no revenue for Google and doesn’t deprive copyright holders of income,” said Stracher (Wall Street Journal October 24, 2005). “It is only when a reader purchases a book that Google derives revenue, and in that situation it has announced plans to pay the copyright holder a royalty. Thus, its scanning ought to be protected by the “fair use” doctrine.” |
|
Free & Wide Searching:
The extent of the displayed search result is not the right measure of “fair use” in this situation. Google, and other search engine providers, plan to have, and use, the entire text of copyrighted works. What they display to any one search ‘hit’ is going to be a matter of their choice, based on the entirety of the text in their database and control. How is that fair? Isn’t this like saying: “I’ll photograph every part of your life, your home and your family but I’ll only display a tiny part of it to those who want to view it? So what’s the big deal?” |
| |
|
|
Free & Wide Searching:
Shouldn’t copyright laws encourage such broad dissemination of information? This approach is consistent with the operation of the Internet, which creates awareness of the existence and source of information. And after all, haven’t public libraries provided free access to entire copyrighted works? Google and others, only wish to provide free, public access to search ‘hits,’ not whole books, or even whole pages of books. |
|
Free and Wide Searching:
However, without financial incentives, such as copyright licensing payments, would many ideas be recorded for dissemination? Google, as one example, has become an extremely valuable commercial company by providing extensive access to information that it had no part in creating. With the ability to provide such information, which contributes to the company's value, should copyright holders of books be able to demand some share in such value created from Google and others, in addition to whatever such copyright holders may gain from additional book purchases? “There’s a better way: let’s build a real digital library, not just snippets. Writers are willing but not at the cost of our rights,” said Taylor. (NYT letter October 2, 2005) |
| |
|
|
|
|
