AAP v. Google
Okay, so there are some close ones in a lot of battles over copyright and fair use. This isn't one.
Publishers, no matter how noble they try to sound have this goal: I don't care if more people have access to my content, I want to make money on the idea that they might want it.
That's precisely why they will lose this case (though the victory for Google will likely be bittersweet given some restraints on fair use).
Google is functioning just like a library/librarian in this one. Is this bad for libraries? I don't think so, given that most of them are moralistically driven by the principle of access to information. Is it fair use? well, that's harder. Google's perspective is very compelling - We won't show you all of the book, but we'll show you some of it, and tell you where to buy it (oh and sell prioritized links on the side for click through revenue).
Publishers are 1) either stupid (because this technology will increase the number of books sold) or 2) greedy.
I opt for the latter, and the former.
Here's where their greed makes them stupid:
All the AAP can be hoping for is to get Google to buy books from them (which won't happen) or to get money from Google each time a link to their book is referenced or clicked through to. (clearly the latter would be the only option Google would consider).
Here's why that's stupid: People don't want to pay to check information out. They don't even want to go to the library and get it for free. They want it now and they want it to be free. Can't handle it? write down your assets as losses at the end of the year and start burning books just to get them off yours.
Publishers should instead ask Google for a quid pro quo - give us your digital copies of our books that are out of print so we can sell PDFs of them online. Let see - free advertising (or very, very targeted advertising for a reasonable rate), no expenses up front (all these publishers have mechanisms in place for selling electronic content or will very, very soon), and a vastly expanded audience of potential customers.
This is the only solution that's efficient and mutually beneficial. As an economist I love it. Anything else is either a) shortsighted b) manipulative or c) both a and b.
I pick c.
Now, Google does risk losing on the fair use issue. Copyright law has generally favored copyright holders (thank you sonny bono, maybe that's why god killed you) but judges are generally pretty academic about academics (Kinko's notwithstanding). But, in fact, the Kinkos situation is a wise decision for Google's fair use position - Google isn't claiming that all their doing is copying a whole article out of a book - they're likely not to provide more than a few lines, or possibly a page of the material (this is what we call context in the reading world) - enough to ensure the word "breast" is actually in an article about mamograms not a danielle steel book.
Fair use should be construed in the context of legal precedent in a research setting, because that's what Google is providing - a research tool. If the court decides the content owner's perspective is correct (that Google is stealing their content to make money off an ancilary service) Google is screwed. If, however the researcher's perspective is taken, Google will win.
I personally recommend finding a good research librarian as a witness.
Publishers, no matter how noble they try to sound have this goal: I don't care if more people have access to my content, I want to make money on the idea that they might want it.
That's precisely why they will lose this case (though the victory for Google will likely be bittersweet given some restraints on fair use).
Google is functioning just like a library/librarian in this one. Is this bad for libraries? I don't think so, given that most of them are moralistically driven by the principle of access to information. Is it fair use? well, that's harder. Google's perspective is very compelling - We won't show you all of the book, but we'll show you some of it, and tell you where to buy it (oh and sell prioritized links on the side for click through revenue).
Publishers are 1) either stupid (because this technology will increase the number of books sold) or 2) greedy.
I opt for the latter, and the former.
Here's where their greed makes them stupid:
All the AAP can be hoping for is to get Google to buy books from them (which won't happen) or to get money from Google each time a link to their book is referenced or clicked through to. (clearly the latter would be the only option Google would consider).
Here's why that's stupid: People don't want to pay to check information out. They don't even want to go to the library and get it for free. They want it now and they want it to be free. Can't handle it? write down your assets as losses at the end of the year and start burning books just to get them off yours.
Publishers should instead ask Google for a quid pro quo - give us your digital copies of our books that are out of print so we can sell PDFs of them online. Let see - free advertising (or very, very targeted advertising for a reasonable rate), no expenses up front (all these publishers have mechanisms in place for selling electronic content or will very, very soon), and a vastly expanded audience of potential customers.
This is the only solution that's efficient and mutually beneficial. As an economist I love it. Anything else is either a) shortsighted b) manipulative or c) both a and b.
I pick c.
Now, Google does risk losing on the fair use issue. Copyright law has generally favored copyright holders (thank you sonny bono, maybe that's why god killed you) but judges are generally pretty academic about academics (Kinko's notwithstanding). But, in fact, the Kinkos situation is a wise decision for Google's fair use position - Google isn't claiming that all their doing is copying a whole article out of a book - they're likely not to provide more than a few lines, or possibly a page of the material (this is what we call context in the reading world) - enough to ensure the word "breast" is actually in an article about mamograms not a danielle steel book.
Fair use should be construed in the context of legal precedent in a research setting, because that's what Google is providing - a research tool. If the court decides the content owner's perspective is correct (that Google is stealing their content to make money off an ancilary service) Google is screwed. If, however the researcher's perspective is taken, Google will win.
I personally recommend finding a good research librarian as a witness.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home