The Point of Google Print

vinohradska writes "Eric Schmidt has written a good article called the The point of Google Print. It clearly lays out the argument against the current lawsuit: 'Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use. If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages.'"

Comments

Publisher's Have a Bug Up Their Ass

[geomon]

This is about control. I guess I didn't notice the corporate copyright lawyer trawling the library taking photographs of the card catalog, which is an index of books in the library's holdings. Of course our library doesn't *have* a card catalog any more; it has an online search utility. Funny that didn't get mentioned in the lawsuit.

Who cares if Google has copied every book ever printed. As long as the copyrights of the author and publisher are honored (they don't give copies away for free), the who cares? If I took every book off the shelf from my library, copied them, and then took the copies home and stuffed them in my garage, who would care? That constitutes 'fair use'. But if I start making more copies and giving them away, or give my copy away, now I should be held to account.

The publishers are just ticked because they see themselves losing control over content. Meet the new RIAA.

Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use. If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages.

Is Schmidt the only one who gets the webpage angle? I would beat the publishers over the head with this one. What do you want to bet that they all have copyrighted webpages indexed on Google. Did they ever protest this fact?

Re:Publisher's Have a Bug Up Their Ass

[Seumas]

Imagine sitting at your computer and, in less than a second, searching the full text of every book ever written . . . Imagine one giant electronic card catalog that makes all the world's books discoverable with just a few keystrokes by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

I've added the emphasis to show why there is a problem for many people with this. You can't advertise it as a full text search of every book every written while justifying it by claiming it's just a card catalog. Last time I stopped in at the local library, the card catalog indexed a brief descriptive blurb, publishing date, printing, editor, publisher, author, page count and title. It did not contain the contents of said book.

Re:Publisher's Have a Bug Up Their Ass

[silentbozo]

I think that the publishers are protesting this, for the same reason the RIAA, and the MPAA are trying to stifle ways that make it easier to sell products. The reason is that they're all distribution channels, but in the age of the internet, there are easier, more cost-effective methods of distribution (ie, direct downloads, Amazon.com, etc.). More so than that, they are MARKETING MACHINES - the reason Author X, or Band Y wants to sign with Publisher Z, is that Publisher Z can front a million dollars pushing product into people's faces, and thus drum up large sales volumes... but only on NEW product.
 
You notice that many of the new technologies (iTunes, eBooks, etc.) really mostly benefit older back-list titles. This is because there is no marketing, production, or distribution budget for these things. There are few, if no jobs in promoting these backlist titles, whereas there is a lot of money in promoting the new stuff.
 
Things like Google Print will help promote sales of older items, and I think the fear is among the publishers, is that their ability to push new content will be drowned out, and they'll all lose their jobs. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of kickbacks, marketing contracts, air time, cushy offices, the whole idea of exclusivity - all down the toilet, because people only have so much time. If they can find what they're looking for without having the consumer Big Brother tell them what they want, then what use are these marketing organizations, especially when most of the new product they peddle is crap to begin with?

rational of opposing google print?

[matt4077]

Aside from law issues, I don't see the business case against opposing google print. Could the net effect be anything else but higher sales due to the amount of people who will find just the right book when searching through google?

The only reason I could see is strategy: the publishers are afraid that google print could be _so_ successful that it gains power against them, ultimately maybe even replace them and directly connect authors and publishers and providing a print-on-demand service. A situation not unlike Apple vs. The Record Companies.

Have these publishing companies

[Chickenofbristol55]

even used google print? You can barely see any of the book, just the "about" page in the beginning. This service is used to DISCOVER books. If millions of people can search and find the book they have been looking for, and they happen to buy it off of amazon let's say, why in hell would they sue Google. THIS WILL ONLY HELP PUBLISHING COMPANIES SELL MORE BOOKS.

Re:Have these publishing companies

[kebes]

You're right, and probably the copyright-holders know that they stand to make more money from google print. The question is, how much and when, and for how long? I think google print, in the short term, will increase sales of books. But as others have pointed out, the danger (as far as publishers see it), is that eventually google print will be viewed as THE WAY to find/get/buy books, and eventually the publishers will become unnecessary. Authors could sign directly with google (or just upload their book to google free of charge?), and they could start selling copies immediately, without needing a publisher.

In my opinion, cutting out middle-men in copyright-work fields (music, books, etc.) is often not a bad thing (proofreading and sound-engineering will always be needed, but will record labels and publishers?). I'm fully in favour of google print and all it represents. Google print is a good thing for authors and for readers. It is not such a great thing for (some) publishers.

From a business point of view, the publishers might be right that this is bad. They realize they are getting screwed in the long run. Of course, the very smart publishers will realize what is happening and modernize their systems. For instance, I use scientific journals alot, and most of them have realized that by putting the journals online, they offer a much more important service than the print version ever did. They are adapting and will continue to thrive. The publishers that can't get with the program will die off... and in my opinion they should.