Letters to the Editor
-
No so far fetched
I ran into the scenario described as an undergraduate. I was working on a engineering project and needed information about low speed areodynamics. I found references to a book that I thought might be useful. The book was out of print, self-published, and the author was dead. No feasible way to buy a new copy and the author would not benefit from me buying a used copy even if I could find one. I managed to get a copy a month later through an inter-library loan request and I didn't feel too guilty about making a photocopy of the parts I needed. Google could have saved me a month. Or perhaps given me access to a better, newer book in print, that I could have paid for. Scholarship requires access to books. If Google can provide that access, scholarship should accelerate. Good for scholars, and good for Google.
Just because I built a house, it doesn't mean I have rights to the sales of maps that include the house, even if it has pictures of the cool front porch I designed. I can't even opt out of being on the map. Google books seems to be the same idea to me.
-
A flood of content is not access to knowledge
Aside from the legal issues, Google's idea is bad for three reasons.
First, flooding people with texts is not the same thing as increasing their knowledge or understanding or access to information. I can only imagine that a Google search of a vast library or texts would be similar to a Google search of the Internet, which means that if you typed in a word or phrase you would get back millions of useless references and links to books that have nothing other than a commercial connection to what you are actually trying to find.
Second, it is bizarre to imagine that there is one book tucked away in a giant library that will be the answer to all your problems if only you knew where to find it. No one book is ever all that important. In terms of factual information: if you can find a fact written in one book, you can find it written in a hundred books. There is no book that has hidden in it a great but useful secret that has failed to come to the attention of lots and lots of people before you got the notion to Google search some obscure phrase. This is especially true in the sciences, and most especially true of scientific information that would be useful to an undergraduate in college, a high school student, or a little kid. A qualified specialist working in any academic field already knows the literature of that field, and so a Google library would not be particularly useful to people who actually know what books are in the library and what those books are for. Research is not about finding quotations in books algorithmically.
Third, nothing is precious that isn't scarce. Time is scarce. Books are scarce. The time we have to learn about what is in books is scarce. For these reasons, knowing how to do research in a library is a skill. Learning how to use books and do research in a library cannot be replaced by a Google search algorithm. Making such a search technique available to young people would just make them dumber.
The whole idea smacks of a misunderstanding of what books are, what books are for, and how books should be used.
-
Throwing Google at the Book
I find the Publishers' argument, especially as phrased by author Peter Salus, to be absurd. If Google needs his permission to copy his book into their database, then every library on the planet needs his permission before they put a copy of his book on their shelves. Both are making his work freely available to the public. It is the same thing.
-
Freedom of information rocks!
Interesting article, however, there are two online books which discuss in detail the benefits of free information and actually refute alot of the economic claims copyright supporters make. One is "Free Culture" and the other is "The Cathedral and the Bazaar."
Free Culture: http://free-culture.org/remixes/
TCATB: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
-
The measure of benefits
The benchmark I tend to use in such cases is simply "how does this benefit society?" It is also common in the present world to benchmark "can this make money for someone?" But it is when those two answers are in conflict that questions are raised.
In the case of copyright laws (and patents to some extent) publishing a new work (thereby copyrighting it) can be considered good or bad, based on the work and the person answering the question. However, I argue that it is "good" that the ideas in it are available to society at large. Making money in this way is perfectly acceptable.
Now what about 20 years later? Assuming the question is being asked because someone is interested in the work, then there is some clear benefit to society. And, yes, money can be made at it. But how much money? Well, if the work is still being published, then fine: it is both available and the copyright holder can earn money for it.
But what of a work that is 70 years old? Who, exactly, is making money here, though? Is the original author still alive? Is it reasonable to expect that a single idea should grant an author the right to lifetime profit? I call into question the benefit to society in this case.
Likewise, many copyrights are held by corporations. While there is a clear case of profit here, what is the benefit to society? Does the author of the work -- a person -- get an incentive to produce more? How exactly does this help society again?
Continuing to an extreme is patent-holding companies. Their purpose is to purchase the rights to patents then negotiate profits for their use. There is definitely a case for profit, but what of an inventor who creates a new idea then is sued by one of these companies for violating a patent -- not sued by the originator of the idea, but by an arbitrary party? Does this promote progress or does it terrify inventors -- the "American dream" is to invent something then make lots of money at it, but it's now an "American nightmare" in that by following the dream and completing its requirements, you end up going into lifetime debt instead?
I think it's time to revisit two things.
First, the durations of copyrights and patents is absurd. Copyrights should be good for no more than 10 years or so and patents somewhat less. That way, contemporaries to an idea or invention have an incentive to improve it -- a benefit to both individuals and society.
Second, only the originator of an idea may hold a copyright or patent. (Perhaps with an exception that unexpired copyrights or patents can be maintained by someone who relies on the care/profits of the originator.) Companies, corporations, and groups should not be allowed to own patents -- rather, they should be allowed to negotiate contracts with the originators for the copying rights.
Of course, I'm just stacking the deck so I'll be happy to invent things for society rather than just hide them in my back yard.