It’s difficult to take issue with, on its surface, a benign, perhaps beneficent endeavor. The world’s books digitized and available for free, for everyone. As you’re aware (I think), this is Google’s grand plan. For years, the company has used its patented scanning technology to make many books accessible for all users. Again, on its surface, who could have a problem with this? On more than one occasion, I’ve used this service before, so I can’t flat out denounce its usefulness.
Google presses forward, hoping to receive final approval for its settlement of a lawsuit filed by the New York-based Authors’ Guild, its merits based on breach of copyright law. At the heart of the Google Books idea is the question of copyright. Google uses US Copyright’s “fair use” loophole to justify the proposed scanning of so-called “orphan works,” books written by authors who cannot be found to request copyright permission, either because they’re dead or trapped in writer’s retreats without telephone access. Furthermore, Google seeks to scan out-of-print books where copyright reverts back to the author(s) once the books’ runs end. Under the settlement, Google will have the right to scan complete copies of out-of-print and “orphan” books, so long as the books are still in copyright.
Of course, there are multiple sides to this debate. As a consumer of information, the idea of a digital library is very appealing. The writer in me, however, is a bit concerned about Google’s handling of a mounting, worldwide repudiation toward its tactics. Granted, the settlement, at approximately $125 million, would attempt to pay a percentage to authors and publishers, depending on whether the book is scanned in part or whole. And Google was so kind as to allow copyright holders a chance to opt out of the project which, to me, seems a bit backwards…I would assume a copyright holder is automatically out of the project until they’ve opted in, i.e. granting permission to Google to scan the book, i.e. you don’t get the book unless you have expressed permission, i.e. US copyright law.
What’s lost in this debate, ironically, is the writer himself. No matter how it’s sugarcoated, the fact remains that, so long as the settlement is approved, the writer of an out-of-print book, with an active copyright, can very well find his tome scanned into Google’s database. Now some would suggest that, with the settlement, money will be paid out (provided it’s not an “orphan,” as if that makes it free to use) and perhaps, if searched enough, inclusion in Google Books could resurrect interest in the volume itself.
Fair enough.
Copyright, however, protects the creator of the work. No matter if one feels the current copyright length is perverted (span of an author’s life plus 70 years), what shouldn’t be overlooked is the notion that unless one “opts-out,” his work is fair game for a company’s benevolent project. Is it a slippery slope? Maybe. To be fair, Google’s project is so ambitious and unprecedented, it’s hard to discern its long-range effects on copyright protection and infringement. But I find it disconcerting that the RIAA initiated a war on music piracy, sued individuals and ran P2P sites out of town, all the while the Authors’ Guild effectively said, “Well if you pay us and give writers a chance to exercise their copyrights, then please, by all means, scan away.”
Would I feel better if Google had to seek out permission to scan a book, rather than claim “fair use” should someone not speak up and opt out? Yes. This slight shift would bring the copyright issue back to its original intent. Instead, Google’s project amounts to a subversion of the author’s rights, independent of whether or not the book is popular or “claimed” by someone. And the idea of a worldwide online library, and its appeal, superseding an author’s rights because the idea itself appears altruistic in nature is, in a word, disheartening.
Maybe I’m missing something. Feel free to discuss.
Peace.
Similar Posts:
- None Found
