What bloggers are saying about the latest in information technology



The Google Book Search has been controversial from the start, and there are a lot of misconceptions out there on both sides of the fence. A common misconception is that you can download any book in print, in full. I admit, when I first heard about it, I was afraid that Google was simply digitizing entire libraries and putting the results online -- a practice that would be disastrous for the publishing industry, blatantly unfair to authors, and outright illegal. Fortunately, they are not doing that.



Last week, Microsoft, which has an online book search of its own in beta, struck out against Google when Microsoft lawyer Thomas Rubin complained in an editorial in the Financial Times. Nicholas Carr doesn't take sides, but aptly refers to it as a "mud fight," and predicts that Microsoft will come out ahead. The discussion that follows Nick's and every other blog however, brings out some of the same tired old arguments: Microsoft is a corporate bully, rich copyright holders are undeserving, information should be free, bla bla bla. None of those arguments have anything to do with the real issue. In fact, much of the commentary out there is just an excuse for engaging in the popular sport of Microsoft-bashing. Fast Company says Microsoft is just posturing, and Global Nerdy even refers to the "Microsoft shyster" instead of "Microsoft lawyer". Now I don't have much love for lawyers either, but the argument really isn't about Microsoft. It's about which model for book search is more legitimate. Microsoft's Live Book Search works differently from Google Book Search. The Microsoft offering only displays books that are past their copyright, or have been specifically authorized by the copyright holder.



One thing both Google Book Search and the upcoming Microsoft Live Book Search do is publish books that are in the public domain online, and this is fair use. That's why there are so many different print publishers who publish classic literature -- they don't have to pay anybody royalties. And I suspect this will be a boon to university literature students everywhere, who will enjoy a little more beer money for not having to purchase dozens of books from the canon of classic literature. It seems like a business model that benefits everyone: Publish uncopyrighted classics online, and instead of requiring readers to purchase a print copy, give it to them for free, in exchange for viewing a few advertisements. I can download the entire collected works of Tolstoy, if I so desire. But I just finished reading the recently-published "The Jesus Family Tomb," and decided to check on Google Books -- and no, I can't download that one. The difference is, Count Tolstoy is long dead and has already made all the money he's going to make; Simcha Jacobovici, on the other hand, is alive and well and deserves compensation for his work.



The big question is that do I, as a creator of content and writer of books, have a problem with my books being on Google Book Search? It's a tough question. When a library carries one of my books, they have purchased it from the publisher, and I get my fifty cents worth of royalty payment. But a library makes that book available only to a local community; if an online library makes a book available in digital form to the entire world, there should be adequate compensation to the author. But as I said, that's not what Google is doing. They are, however, providing a summary, table of contents, title page, index, and copyright page, a link to buy the book, and a place to search the book. Search results will show snippets of text, maybe a few paragraphs, related to the search. Frankly, it doesn't seem like such an egregious imposition on my rights, and it may help me sell a few books in the process. The grey area comes in deciding whether Google has a right to scan and index those books without permission from the publisher. Publishers may well decide it's to their advantage to grant permission-but it would be more fair for Google to seek out that permission before scanning.



There are a lot of bloggers out there that criticize Google Book Search because Google makes a profit by applying advertising to the works. This seems a bizarre argument to me. Do they expect Google, a for-profit company, to do it for free? There is a misguided contingent of the so-called "digirati" that believes that all information should be accessible online, at no cost, and with no advertising. Of course, the fallacy with this argument is that soon, we would be left with little more than ill-conceived Wikipedias and content created by volunteers, full of inaccuracies and usually of poor quality. Professional writers, scholars and other content creators would stop contributing, and effectively be out of a job. By the same token, we could just as easily argue that all plumbers should work for free, since people do, after all, have a right to pipes that don't leak, as much as they have a right to free information.

Sentiment against Microsoft to the contrary, let's give credit where it's due. It seems to me that Microsoft is taking the moral high ground here. Google's Book Search probably doesn't violate the spirit of copyright law, but there is a grey area that still has to be defined, and there's room for argument. There's absolutely no question as to the legitimacy of Microsoft Live Book Search. Microsoft seeks permission first, then indexes. Google indexes first, then sorts it all out later. From the perspective of fairness to copyright holders, Microsoft leaves nothing open for debate.

ITworld.com

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine