University Of Michigan: No Other Choice But To Let Google Scan Books
from the preservation-of-knowledge dept
The debate over the Google Library project to help scan all of the books in various university libraries has quieted down a bit lately, but John Battelle points to a speech from the president of the University of Michigan passionately defending the program to a bunch of book publishers. It’s good that the book publishers were willing to invite someone to speak to them who disagrees with their lawsuit against Google, though it’s unlikely to have much of a direct impact. Instead of focusing on the (many) ways that Google’s project could help publishers and authors, Mary Sue Coleman highlights the mission of expanding knowledge. Unfortunately, this is probably the least likely reason to convince book publishers that they’re making a mistake. It certainly sounds good to hear: “This project is about the social good of promoting and sharing knowledge. As a university, we have no other choice but to do this project,” but that isn’t likely to interest publishers who are focused more on making money. While both of these are mentioned in the speech, the two most important points that publishers need to understand is that (1) this is legal anyway and (2) embracing it allows them to expand their offerings in a number of important ways that can help them make more money.
Comments on “University Of Michigan: No Other Choice But To Let Google Scan Books”
sharing is a euphemism for theft
… plain and simple. If one is not the author of a work, be it literary, musical, technological or otherwise, it cannot be published with clear conscience. – Mark Foster, USA
Re: sharing is a euphemism for theft
i know, right? those libraries… how can they let people borrow those books for free with a clear conscience?? i’m glad someone is finally saying something about the libraries… we’ve all been paying attention to google, but they’re just gonna be doing what libraries have been doing for years and years.
what google is doing isn’t theft. whoever this foster guy is, he’s not thinking clearly. people are just mad cause google will make money off of this and they weren’t lucky enough to get in on the IPO, so now they want google to fail. there’s no law being broken, no publisher is being hurt, a lot of publishers will be helped, and more people will have access to books… explain how that is a bad thing?
Re: Re: sharing is a euphemism for theft
How is it possible for google to scan and reference books when it usually says quite clearly
… “No duplication/replication of this content,
in whole or in part, is permitted without the
explicit written authorization of ….”
Is google using some kind of library clause to
behave as an internet library? (are their clauses
for that?)
Re: Re: Re: sharing is a euphemism for theft
I would guess Google could use an education clause. To simplify you can photo copy works or provide digital copies of works for educational purposes. Only limited portions can be provided, thus Google?s blocking after a certain number of pages. It would seem this was the original intent of Google to provide educational works (and out of print works). It doesn?t seem their intent was allow you to read the next romance novel or Oprah book club book online.
Re: Re: Re: sharing is a euphemism for theft
It’s called “fair use”. Copying of short excerpts is explicitly allowed (for reviews, research, et cetera).
If Google links those pages of short excerpts to purchase locations of the indicated books, then all the publishers have to do is have an on-line store that connects to demand print and ship. Wait for the money to roll in.
Re: Re: Re:2 sharing is a euphemism for theft
Exactly.
Book publishers need to know how to adapt to Google, and use their technology to their own benefit. Take online businesses for example–how many small web sites grew overnight because of AdWords? How many community forums grew revenue because of AdSense?
There is no sense in trying to stop technology. So you might as well work with it.
Re: Re: sharing is a euphemism for theft
haha, those darn libraries! they’re the napsters of the book world, shut ’em down!
Re: Re: Re: sharing is a euphemism for theft
I think the one thing that people seem to be forgetting is that a library is fundamentally different from the internet in one way, distribution capability. Yes, libaries allow people to read and copy sections of books, but they don’t have an infinite amount of books and only so many people can get to the resources. Combined with the fact that there are more than one libraries, you can see how even though people have access to materials at libraries, publishers still get their cuts because all the libraries have to buy copies of the book.
Now, if volumes previously available through the library (or by buying the book), were made available on the net, now you have a single point able to distribute the material to practically everyone on the web. Even if that point of distribution paid the publisher for the copy of the book (the fair use people), does that then give them the right to distribute it to everyone in cyberspace? The publishers would basically be stuck with making virtually no money.
Granted, I now understand that Google is only planning to make “indexes” and “snippets” of books available, which is different, but I can see where the publishers would need some serious reassurance (via contract) that Google doesn’t one day decide to just let the whole volume become available.
Finally, fully realizing that my arguement sounds a bit like MPAA or RIAA (whom I don’t agree with mostly), I will assert that books are different from music and to a lesser extent movies in how they are used and perhaps the same arguements that sound great for digital distribution of music and movies, aren’t so great for a book or reference text.
so why isn't this theft?
So, can someone explain to me how Google scanning books and making them available online, without the permission of the publishers, not theft?
I keep hearing how this could help publishers and authors, how? From what I understand, educational literature (like textbooks and stuff) is already a low margin industry anyway.
Re: so why isn't this theft?
So, can someone explain to me how Google scanning books and making them available online, without the permission of the publishers, not theft?
Ah, it’s the second part, the “making them available online” that isn’t happening. All they’re doing is making an index of the books, just as they make an index of websites. Then, when someone does a search, they display a small portion, which can help people discover new books to buy. If this is illegal, then so is every web search engine.
Re: Re: so why isn't this theft?
OK, that makes more sense. So why are the publishing houses balking? Is it cause Google hasn’t proposed the business model to them and signed the contracts before commencing on the scanning? I would think that Google would save itself lots of aggrevation (and make its stock holders happy) to draw up the aggreements with the publishers and end the whole issue now.
Re: so why isn't this theft?
Does the library ask permission from the publisher to loan the book out? Do you ask permission from their publisher if you use a small excerpt from their book in a essay or some other writing? No because it is fair use. Google does scan the whole book but they don’t make the whole thing available for viweing. You can only look at a few pagess at a time, which falls well under fair use. This is not theft the book publishers are just blowing things out of proportion. How could this help? Well if you read 3 pages of a book and it seems really good you are probably going to buy it. If you are already online and can easily just click and the book is shipped to you, then you are even more likely to buy it. Lets face it how times have we said “I need to buy that book” but never get to it. If the book was only a click away while it is still fresh in your mind you are way more likely to buy. It is that simple, it’s not theft and increases revenue for the publishers.
Re: so why isn't this theft?
You make mention of the fact that educational books are low margin. Have you been to college lately!? Obviously someone is making money on these books b/c well I spent almost $700 on text books alone this last semester. But the point has been made that granted the books that are being scanned by Google aren’t current works BUT still I can’t even begin to fathom why a bio-chem book would cost upwards of $200 and well that book have absolutely NO margin. Sorry that’s just my 2 cents.
Re: Re: so why isn't this theft?
Actually, I’m getting my PhD now and I can empathize with the cost of books. But do you understand why? Of course the books are going to be very expensive because publishers aren’t producing a whole lot of them, and most of them require significantly more development than say, a fiction work. Once you factor in the cost to pay fact checkers and people to check that questions asked in the book are answerable and appropriate, the cost of a simple bio-chem book is really expensive (and if it’s a hot field like bio-chem, more than likely you gotta revise the text every couple of years to stay current). The biggest problem with educational books (on the college level primarily) is that they are a fairly limited run commodity. If every university/college used the same book set, publishers would make lots of money, but that isn’t the case, I read somewhere that if 100 colleges/universities use a particular text it’s considered a success. Botom line, we’re not talking about millions of copies of books being produced, maybe only hundreds in some cases, and they’re expensive to make in the first place.
That’s what I meant when I said low margin. You’re paying for the fact that most of the American population isn’t too interested in bio-chem textbooks.
Bookstores
So, according to the publishers, when I walk into my local bookstore (be it that B&N place, the one here on campus, whatever) and pick up the latest bestseller and flip through several pages to see if I like it, I’m doing something illegal. What about the people who sit there at the imbedded coffee shops and read the books they pick up off the shelves? I have a friend who loves Harry Potter and she read the entire sixth book while sitting in the bookstore. Or maybe I shouldn’t call attention to that or else the publishers will jump on that luxury also.
Fair Use and First Sale Doctrine
Reading these comments, I see some confusion regarding the first sale doctrine and fair use of material. A library or anyone can loan or sell a book they have bought because of the first sale doctrine, permitting someone to dispose of the physical object as they please. This doctrine breaks down when applied to electronic copies.
Libraries may make limited copies of printed works, but this is not fair use, it is statutory driven. Google is not a library.
Fair use is a pretty slippery doctrine, and it is a doctrine that is fleshed out in the case law. This means that courts, not the legislature, generally say what is and what is not fair use. One factor courts look at is the potential commercialization of the use. Publishers have spoken about creating pay services to do exactly what Google has talked about. In addition, Google receives revenue from their service.
I have to conclude that legally, Google is on pretty shaky ground. Of course, this won’t be decided until there is an action brought against them. From a business perspective, I think publishers are being short sighted.
Re: Fair Use and First Sale Doctrine
google will not receive revenue from the service at all. they’ll make money the same way they always have, with ads.
No Subject Given
“this is legal anyway”
You are wrong. Copying copyrighted material without consent is never legal in this country. Where did you pull that one from?
Re: No Subject Given
You are wrong. Copying copyrighted material without consent is never legal in this country.
Uh, have you actually read what they’re doing? And have you ever heard of fair use?
Re: No Subject Given
You’ve never heard of a library, then?
buying books
The libraries buy books once and loan them out for free. I can buy a book and give it away so someone else can read it for free then they can do the same and so on.