Letters to the Editor
-
google can afford the license
Given that the current stock price of a Google share is well over 300 dollars, the that the company is doing so well in every other category, it is insulting to ask authors to allow for a weakening of the copyright law to suit the purposes of billionaires. To put it bluntly, the writers need the money more than Google does and the content belongs to the writers. That's the way it is. The only people on Google's side in this matter do not have a pocketbook stake in the matter if the copyright law is weakened.
-
I make my living from copyright law
I work in the software industry. For my entire career, my paycheck has come from the strength of American copyright laws. I've worked for large and small companies, all depending on the knowledge that their creations are for sale and are not to be copied without permission. Those software purchase prices have paid my salary for close to 20 years. Google, which is chock full of people who likely earned their livings from software before they went to Google, ought to know this.
I don't copy CDs. I don't copy movies. I don't download e-Books without paying. What goes around comes around. I like my paycheck and the laws that protect it. And other than the rare Stephen King or JK Rowling, most writers aren't making enough money to buy cat food. Google can go find something else to do.
-
Good for everyone
It seems to me that Google could be of great help to publishers by providing information to them on the number of hits on out-of-print books. For example, if a publisher knew that a particular out-of-print book were generating thousands or tens of thousands of searches every month, maybe that's a book that would make financial sense to put back into print. How else would publishers get that kind of information?
Another option might be a Rhapsody-style subscription service. I pay around 10 bucks a month to listen to some of the million or so tracks available on Rhapsody. I'd pay more than that to have a million searchable books at my fingertips.
Personally, I think there would be very few people who would want to read entire books on-line. I tried reading short books on a Palm device a few years ago, and I never made it thorough a single book. People like books; they don't want to sit in front of the glare of a computer screen for hours. They want the portability of the book, and the ease of reading. But they will sit in front of a computer for hours doing research and book searches. So I don't think that a Google-style system is going to take any revenue from anyone. And actually, having books available on-line would be a way that new authors could develop a readership. Hell, were I an aspiring author with a book I couldn't sell to a publisher I'd PAY Google to scan it and put it online -- and then find out how many hits it was getting.
-
re: alexander's post
i agree with alexander. you can debate antiquated copyright laws till the cows come home, but to lionize google as some kind of robin hood is just naive. like all smart companies, their ultimate mission is far from noble.
-
Can't help but cheer Google on
I appreciate the article's inclusion of the many perspectives that need to be considered in this case.
My stake in this, though I am neither author nor publisher, is that I am a student in a "third world" country. I can try to educate myself the best I can, but the fact that our university and public libraries cannot afford to stock up on important but obscure volumes is limiting. I don't even need the entire book -- just a relevant passage that can lead me to other areas of study.
Google Print and other similar ventures will minimize that problem, if not totally eliminate it. Our libraries will only need to invest in computers and net connections, and in that way the developing world saves millions.
To me, that's a good thing.
-
Digital Highwayman
The example of the benefits of the Google system given in Mr. Manjoo's article is totally farfetched: an obscure reference giving exactly the fact one needs, one otherwise unavailable. This is possible but certainly a rare event in most of our lives. The reality Google wants to offer, he indicates, is quite different: the texts of Lolita, the great Gatsby. and other books still under copyright, some of them still selling. Though it poses as a knight of literacy, by digitizing libraries, scanning copyrighted books and offering them online, Google is simply a highwayman, ripping off the coyright owner. The result will be to drive down the value of content, since the rewards of creating it will be lessened, and hence possibly its quality also. We will not see the gems for the dreck.
Google already scans an enormous digital library, namely the global web content it normally searches. Content thus accessed, however, can be protected by the website owner That is not the case with libraries, which are mere repositories of material. It is true that no one knows the copyright status of all the books in the library, but the status of most books can be determined.
One wonders how far Google will get when it decides it has the rights to scan the Barnes and Noble catalog as well.
Cliff Barney
-
The Dream
If publishers can't show harm, I say let Google do what they want. The publishers lose some control, but the world gains an instantly searchable database of a huge chunk of the world's knowledge. In fact, add in some decent translation software, start scanning books from all around the world, and we'll be well on our way to realizing the ultimate potential of the internet.
Google naturally wants information to be free since it's the gatekeeper to that information. However, it's hard to see Google as the bad guy. They stand to profit enormously from this, but so does the populace. Isn't that the dream of capitalism?
-
Google should change the law, not break it
It's hard not to be sympathetic; as an academic who routinely publishes without a thought of demanding payback for my labor, I would love to see Google index and make searchable the millions of books that are out of print and available only to those with a University pass.
But Google is breaking the law. If I were to digitize the text of a new book, and allow people to enter search terms on a website to find sentences contained therein, I would clearly be breaking the copyright law. Indeed, just by digitizing the text, and keeping it on more that one hard-drive, I would be breaking the law.
Is the law moral? I agree with Lessig: no, it is not. Copyright laws are restrictive, and the way they are built today, the paralyse our culture. I will not detail Lessig's arguments; people can read them elsewhere.
At the same time, however, the law applies to us all. Google should not be able to use its money and its influence to break it. If they want to do Google Print -- and I think they should -- they should work to change the laws. They should fund (ugh) lobbyists. They should run ads. They should support political candidates who oppose the big-money groups like Disney, the MPAA, and the RIAA, who are sucking the life from our culture, suppressing dissent, and making millions off of Steamboat Willie and corporation-friendly versions of hip-hop, rap and folk.