p2p news / p2pnet:- Google wants to scan around twenty million books from four major libraries and create a searchable database of their contents so that researchers at universities, schoolchildren in libraries and anyone at home can quickly find titles which might be relevant to their work.

Called ‘Google Print’, it’s a bit like Amazon’s feature that lets you search inside a book although unlike Amazon, where you can then read a few pages from each book you find, Google will only give you enough detail to let you know that you’ve found what you’re looking for.

It’s a great idea, and the resulting catalogue will rapidly become the starting place for researchers around the world. But it might not happen, because the project is currently stalled after three US authors sued Google for scanning their copyright material.

The authors, with support from the US Authors Guild, call the project ‘a plain and brazen violation of copyright law’ and argue that ‘it’s not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied’.

I am an author, so I have an interest in this, and even though I have many doubts about Google’s operations and ideology, I have to support them in this one.

A few years ago mp3.com launched mymp3.com. It was a great service which let you listen to your music collection anywhere.

They ripped tens of thousands of CDs onto their servers, and once you had an account with them you fed your CD collection into your computer and it flagged which ones you owned. Then you could listen to them from any computer you were using.

It was probably legal, but grey enough for the record industry to sue them out of existence.

Google is big enough to stand up to the pressure, and it can afford even more expensive lawyers than the Authors Guild. But there is a danger that now they are a public company obliged to enhance shareholder value they will instead cut a deal with them to share revenue or pay to license this way of using the text.

We’d get our catalogue then, but have lost something equally valuable – the ability for anyone else to do what Google has done.

After all, why shouldn’t I be able to scan the books I own and index them so that I can find out exactly where William Gibson first used the term ‘cyberspace’?

Google is having to scan books – except where the library already has an electronic edition – but at least they can do this. We shouldn’t forget that nobody, not even Google, could legally do the same thing for documentaries on DVD or music stored on the iTunes Music Store.

The content there, even if it is itself in the public domain, is protected with encryption and digital rights management software, and breaking that protection is illegal even if you want to use the material for legitimate purposes.

It’s good that they can avoid the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but we must not let a strong reading of copyright law deter them either.

There is a growing movement to treat copyright and other forms of intellectual property as if they were just like other forms of property right. This would mean that Domino Recording, who hold the copyright in the new Franz Ferdinand album own it in the same way I own the laptop I’m currently writing on.

That isn’t the case. Copyright is a time-limited state-granted

monopoly that gives the rights holder certain privileges. It is a bargain between the state and creators that is supposed to benefit both sides, rewarding creative endeavour and therefore leading to a general improvement in society.

Rights holders have always tried to use the law to stop innovations that don’t benefit them directly. In the 1970’s the movie industry tried to kill video recording, and the record industry has only just begun to realise that online distribution is the key to their future survival rather than the devil’s handiwork.

Now some authors and their trade association are standing in the way of progress, even though it is clear to anyone whose analysis is not skewed by their law degree and corporate salary that the main beneficiaries of the project will be publishers and the authors themselves.

They will sell more books or, if they are academics, see their research read and cited more often. There will be a general increase in the quality of university research simply because vital sources will be overlooked less often. The world will be a better place.

Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig, chair of the Creative Commons, puts it very clearly when he points out that the authors ‘don’t really want the court to stop the new technology. Then, like now, they simply want to be paid for the innovations of someone else. Then, like now, the content owners ought to lose.’

He’s right. But even if they win, we authors ought to have any victory under current law taken away from us. If existing copyright law can stop Google – or anyone else with the inclination – from creating such a phenomenally useful tool then copyright law is wrong and must be changed.

There are three things Google can do now to make it clear that profit is not the only thing motivating them in the project.

First, they can change the name. ‘Google Print’ makes publishers and authors think of print on demand and printing extracts, but even the US Authors Guild might have been happy to see the launch of ‘Google Catalog’.

Second, and more crucially, they can open the project up to anyone who wants to participate. That means publishing the technical specifications and any relevant APIs so that – for example – I can search the database from within my web application without having to show their ads on my site.

Finally, they should let any library in the world have a copy of the electronic versions of all the books they hold that are in the catalogue.

Not a link to the Google website but a real copy, to be held locally and used by the library under a very relaxed and permissive license.

If they do that then I’ll start to think that they are serious about doing no evil in the world. Otherwise we’ll just have to kick off an open source scanning project to create a free catalogue of our own – I’ve got a few thousand books to get started with – and let the publishers sue ten thousand of us.

Bill Thompson – andfinally.com
[Thompson is a UK-based writer and broadcaster.]

======================

Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
- Mohandas Gandhi

Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local political representatives. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 14th, 2005 at 12:06 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 2073 times