[IP] more on Google Suspends Scanning Copyrighted Works -- For Now
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tim O'Reilly <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 12, 2005 5:23:04 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ip Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] Google Suspends Scanning Copyrighted Works -- For Now
On Aug 12, 2005, Lauren Weinstein <lauren@xxxxxxxxxx> 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)
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/