Google books: creating a digital library without Google’s money
Google’s efforts to create a global digitized library were dealt a serious blow when a New York federal judge threw out a 2008 settlement between Google and authors and publisher groups. Google co-founder Sergey Brin had described the plan to create such a library as a way of unlocking the wisdom imprisoned in the world’s out-of-print books. However, many felt that it was another example of a profit-driven entity trying to amass large quantities of other people’s copyrights.
Through Google BookSearch, certain snippets of books were visible to the public. Because many of these books were still under copyright, Google found itself the target of multiple lawsuits, but it managed to evade these accusations by invoking the fair use doctrine. This was an essential part of the 2008 settlement that seemed to calm the storm. But also within that settlement was the stipulation that would have allowed Google to continue scanning new entries and offering access to the results for a fee. The trickiest part of the settlement dealt with “orphan books”, or those books that were copyrighted but out of print, and whose rights holders could not be found or identified. Google decided simply to go ahead with their scanning process, rather than try to spend the time seeking out the rights holders and attaining their permission to do so.
One question that comes from this situation is this: if we are so eager for the idealistic global digital library, is it so important that one company is making it all possible while deriving a profit? One could argue that Google has established itself as a global superpower, and it has no real obligation to create such a library. Yet Google has decided to undertake the huge task, and if they skim a little off the top, is that harming the pedigree of the digital library? Even when dealing with “orphan books”, one has to admit that if a copyright holder cannot be readily found, then potentially the holder does not hold the copyright itself in high esteem, and they are not necessarily looking to profit from their own copyright.
I just love libraries and the feeling of a book in my hands, so I have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of an online library. Still, when we go back to the idea of market-damage, Google libraries will only mean good things for books available for purchase and sample. I could definitely see myself looking up a book on Google before walking to Strand to buy it.
Google isn’t providing this service because of its altruistic nature, but if it provides a public service and can make a profit in the meantime, more power to it.
I don’t support the idea of Google books. The claim is that they are supplying literature to those who other may not have access to it. I have two major issues with this, first that Google is profiting off of this. The second is that the rightful copyright owner will not. The argument that they are providing for those who may not be able to access this is absurd simply because Google is accessible on the Internet. If a person does not have access to library, is it likely they have access to a computer? No, it is not. When a real library purchases a book, the copyright holder is paid, not Google. This new business model is a way for Google to profit off of other writers’ hard work.
Though people may love the idea of holding a book in their hands, and the mere turning of pages may evoke nostalgic memories, the fact remains that their is a digital revolution in progress. Everything is becoming digital from conversations (via websites such as Twitter) to takeout (via GrubHub), so why not books? Furthermore why not Google? I do not believe that Google should be scrutinized for their efforts to digitize books, in a time where analog material is slowly fading out. I see Google as a saving grace. Google is taking the precautionary measures of obtaining the copyrights to these books (something that they were not doing before). As long as they are doing so then why not Google. I do not believe that competition is necessary component when it comes to determining the legitimacy of something. Just because there is no other company that is willing to scan books and create a digital library, does not mean we have to look down on the company that is doing so even if it is for profit. Even if a person does not have access to a computer, the Kindle and other e-readers are a convenient solution to a problem that is proving inevitable. Also scanning books online allows for the read to be more vastly spread. You will never have to wait for someone to return a book, hindering you from your study or research. I see little market-damage caused by Google. In this day and age people are always looking for accessibility and affordability. Publishing companies and authors will retain their audience as well profit from their die hard audience members who appreciate the novelty of novels.