|
Not surprisingly, too publishing associations have strongly objected to Google’s
latest plan for Google Print For Libraries. A few
weeks ago Google announced that it would cease scanning books in libraries, giving publishers time to opt out of the
program. Everybody realized the contrariness (and, frankly, arrogance) of this proposition, as it directly opposes the
principle of American copyright law, which protests the creator and demands that licenser opt in to the creator’s
requirements. The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) and the Association of American
University Presses (AAUP) have blasted Google for its
apparent intention to sweep publishers (many of them oblivious, no doubt) into the Google Print database.
In SEW Danny Sullivan takes a challenging
approach to the publishers’ opposition and relates a Q&A he had with a representative from the ALPSP. Danny
remarks: ”And I guess all I’m saying is that those publishers, if they try to push this angle with Google via a
lawsuit, had better be prepared for explaining why they’ve never complained about having their web sites indexed by
Google for years without permission.” But this attitude, too, ignores basic copyright principle. Here is how the
publishers could respond: ”We chose not to dispute Web indexing; we choose to dispute book indexing.” Copyright
owners don’t need to justify their business priorites to make copyright infringement claims, as far as I know. It is
the content owner’s prerogative to control the content, even if that means allowing copyright liberties in some cases
and not allowing them in others.
Danny continues: ”One interesting solution will be to see if Google simply goes out and buys a copy of every book
it wants to offer in its virtual library. If libraries are OK lending books, Google might argue that it’s creating a
card catalog of books in its collection.” I think a couple of hard-hitting lawsuits would cure Google of its
copyright arrogance. Companies have been sued out of business (think of the original MP3.com) for making similar
bets.
Danny seems to think that Google’s Web indexing practices are inviolable, and therefore should set the standard of
what’s allowable in other types of indexing. That could be how it gets played out. But I think it’s also possible that
Google will eventually endure significant setbacks by the accumulated damage of multiple lawsuits (the
Perfect 10 suit might have capricious aspects, but
it definitely raises broad copyright questions).
Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
© 2005 Weblogs, Inc.
| 
