Opinion: Does Google Print break copyright laws or follow the fair-use principle?
Google’s plans for a virtual library of millions of digital books has sparked competing efforts by Microsoft, Yahoo and Amazon, whose less ambitious plans could avoid infuriating copyright holders who have attacked Google.
Copyright laws and their place on the Internet has been the subject of fierce debate since Napster first came on the scene. But while the courts found music "sharing" was, in fact, "unauthorized copying," Google Print seems to honor the copyright rather than exploit it.
Copyright laws provide copyright holders with a means to profit from their works. The copyright also allows for "fair use": the ability, for instance, to take music from a purchased CD and put it on an MP3 player, to use a VCR to record a TV program, or to quote or excerpt printed or recorded material, as long as attribution is given and royalties are paid, where applicable.
We do not see how Google’s efforts violate the fair-use principle. It seems that Google is attempting to do what libraries already do with the books they own, which is to create an index (a card catalog) that will let readers find information in a text. Using a card catalog is not robbing the author of any income—he or she has already been paid for the book by the library.
The same would hold true for Google’s project and, at the same time, open up the texts to a much wider audience of readers and researchers. In addition, there is a registration process for users and an opt-out feature for owners of copyrighted material.
Google Print, which scans books and makes their texts available online for keyword searches, was launched earlier this month with what the California company called only "a small fraction" of the 15 million titles it eventually hopes to digitally copy.
Even before the launch, Yahoo and Microsoft, Google’s main rivals on the internet, announced separate plans to digitize books into online libraries. But Microsoft’s and Yahoo’s virtual libraries are expected to be smaller, limited to only works in the public domain — those without current copyrights.
While Google Print’s initial collection is only public-domain works, it has also been scanning copyrighted works, angering many authors and publishers who have accused the company of seeking to trample on copyrights for its own financial gain.
If Google Print is allowed to proceed, the litigants foresee a world of copyright chaos, where people will freely steal material and authors will no longer be paid, destroying the very fabric of society. This is obviously an extreme view, one that fails to see the opportunity that an index of more than 20 million books can offer. Rather than be hurt, book sales may increase due to their exposure in the index. In fact, such an index may even revive long-forgotten or out-of-print texts.
On the other side, if Google loses, its supporters say, the ruling could unravel the fabric of the Internet. What Google is proposing also is not unlike what Google, Yahoo or MSN already do on the Web. These search engines grab snippets of information to create an index so that they can direct users to the original material. Once there, the user can practice his or her own fair use, citing an author or a URL in exchange for the information.
Google has been giving publishers and authors the right to "opt out" of having their works included in the online library, but the company still faces legal challenges over copyrights.
Meanwhile, online retail giant Amazon.com has already challenged Google with its announcement this month of a different digital library model: one that allows consumers to purchase "online access" to books or to "any page, section, or chapter" of a book.
Copyright holders would get a part of the receipts earned by the new service, Amazon Pages.
The Amazon Pages formula was welcomed by the publishing world as a solution to the dilemma over copyrights, similar to the battle over digital music that worked its way through the courts in recent years.
A number of models will be tried and we will try to help and be a voice in the debate of what the consumers wants and at what price, said John Sargent, chief executive of Holtzbrinck Publishers, a unit of Germany’s Verlagsgruppe.
One publisher, Bertelsmann unit Random House, has suggested a formula along the lines of the Apple iTunes model, which allows consumers to download copyrighted music for 99 cents a song.
Google’s digital library has its supporters, however, who argue that the online library would be more like a "card catalogue" that stimulates even more interest in books.
The purpose of Google Print is not making books available for free; there is a lot of confusion, said Rebecca Jeschke, spokeswoman at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an activist group that is backing Google in the courts.
Google wants to create a way to access books which would help both users and publishers.
If Google Print is restricted in any way, it does not seem too many steps away from inhibiting the way search engines do their jobs. The truth of the matter is that information on the Web wants to be found; it should be no different with printed material.
Analysts say that whatever the fate of these projects, there is little danger of digital books replacing the ones on people’s shelves.