More on Google Suspends Scanning Copyrighted Works -- For Now

[Liblicense-L Listowner <liblicen@pantheon.yale.edu>]

Of possible interest; from David Farber's "Interesting People" list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim O'Reilly <tim@oreilly.com>
Date: August 12, 2005 5:23:04 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: Ip Ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Google Suspends Scanning Copyrighted Works -- For Now

On Aug 12, 2005, Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Google-Library-
>Copyrights.html
>
>However, demonstrating that Google still doesn't really "get it," the
>article notes that:
>
>    Google wants publishers to notify the company which copyrighted
>    books they don't want scanned, effectively requiring the industry
>    to opt out of the program instead of opting in.  ...  ''Google's
>    procedure shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement
>    to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every
>    principle of copyright law on its ear.'' ...
>
> I'm all in favor of reasonable copyright laws that don't extend
> copyrights so far into the future that important works are kept out
> of the public domain seemingly forever, but Google's project, as
> relates to copyrighted works, definitely has been beyond the pale.

Dave, I am on Google's publisher advisory board for Google Print, and
while the conversations in the room at the last advisory board meeting,
where these changes were discussed, were confidential, I think it's OK to
report my own feelings on the matter (and that I found myself quite at
odds with most of the other publishers on this issue.)

It seems to me that Google's position, that scanning the documents in
order to provide a service that allows potential readers to find which
books contain the information they are seeking is indeed fair use, is a
defensible position.  The fact that such a service has huge potential
value to google is beside the point.  Google is creating, at considerable
expense, a collective work that enables users to search books in new ways.  
The information they provide in the form of snippets, analogous to the
snippets they show in search results for web pages, would certainly be
considered fair use, if, for example, I were to create and circulate a
reading list of my favorite books, including suggestive snippets.  The
fact that they are creating it algorithmically and on demand doesn't
change that dynamic, in my mind.

Nor are they obtaining the books that they scan in an unauthorized way.  
The libraries have bought and paid for those books.  They would be within
their rights to scan the books and make an internal copy.  Google is doing
this for them, but again, I don't see this as an unfair use.  The same
people who think it's illegitimate would also argue that it's unfair use
for a user to rip a copy of a CD to his or her hard disk.

Let me take this out of the realm of copyright law for a moment, and ask
about which side in this debate is going to provide benefit to both
authors and readers.  Is it google, or is it the publishers?

Even if I'm wrong about the legal issue (because, after all, I'm not a
lawyer), I believe that Google (along with Amazon with their Search
Inside, as well as more specialized services like O'Reilly's own Safari
Books Online service (http://safari.oreilly.com)) are exploring new
business models for publishing online.  I will lay pretty strong odds that
those publishers who are whining now about the illegitimacy of what Google
is doing will be desperately trying to play catch up once new models
become established.

Publishers have been stalling for years in getting their content online.  
Now someone may have a model that will take us in new directions, and they
want to stop it till they can figure out how they will be the ones to
profit from it.

It's clear that we're entering a brave new world when it comes to digital
versions of books.  But what we should have learned from the music
industry brouhaha is that punishing the pioneers (even if, to quote
Shakespeare, they let "the hot blood leap over the cold decree") is simply
a recipe for delay, and typically transfers value from the first mover to
the second (think Napster to iTunes), while the complaining, delaying
parties are still too late to the party to profit as much as they would if
they got on board.

I'm excited about the potential of Google Print to drive both print sales
and pay per view access to online content.  Google is out there trying to
build publishers a new business model.  Once the service is in place and
fully deployed, there will be huge opportunities for publishers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly Media, Inc.
1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-827-7000
http://www.oreilly.com (company), http://tim.oreilly.com (personal)