I first learned about the Google library project last year in some website calling on authors and publishers the world over, whose works could be affected by a settlement of a copyright infringement lawsuit against Google. There wasn’t much noise about it in electronic media then, but I knew the issue had legal implications.

The Google Library Project seeks to digitize millions of books and make them easier to find for readers, “specifically, books they wouldn’t find any other way such as those that are out of print.” How does it work? According to Google, “Whenever you do a Google web search, you’re also searching our book index; any relevant hits will appear in your search results, and clicking on a result will take you to the relevant page in the book, where you can browse a few more pages and learn where to borrow or buy it.” This means we will be able to read more than just blurbs; we will be able to review selected scanned pages of books containing our search terms, giving us an idea whether the book is worth bothering about, as far as our information needs are concerned. An equally important benefit, one that should not be overlooked, is the preservation of out-of-print books, thus perpetuating their contribution to human knowledge and maximizing their earning potential. Naturally, Google will be earning from this, too, and this is one of the arguments of its critics.

Instead of settling things down, the settlement, made last year for the copyright infringement suit filed by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google, stirred objections that now have reached international scale, with various European governments airing conflicting views on the issue. The Settlement provides that:

Authors, publishers, and other copyright holders will get a one-time payment of $60 per scanned book (or $5 to $15 for partial works). In return, Google will be able to index the books and display snippets in search results, as well as up to 20% of each book in preview mode. Google will also be able to show ads on these pages and make available for sale digital versions of each book. Authors and copyright holders will receive 63 percent of all advertising and e-commerce revenues associated with their works.

Those who do not wish to be part of this may opt out and may “file (their) own lawsuit or join a separate lawsuit against Google.” It does not preclude authors from distributing their printed works through other means, e.g. brick-and-mortar bookstores and e-commerce sites like Amazon or Barnes and Noble. However, according to one report, “Under US class-action law, authors and publishers who do not specifically opt out of the settlement are deemed to have signed up to it.” Thus, an author of an out-of-print book whose work ends up in the Google electronic library may find himself/herself reluctantly sharing royalties with Google because he or she did not opt out of the Settlement.

The issue is heating up with publishers, authors, libraries and technology giants, notable among which are Microsoft and Yahoo, joining forces to oppose Google’s book scanning project through the Open Book Alliance. Because Google is accessible to anyone in the planet who has Internet access, this coalition is afraid Google might end up controlling global access to digitized books and as such, the issue falls within the purview of antitrust laws, a hark back to the issue on Microsoft’s Windows several years ago.

It is unlikely that Google will ever have an ultimate monopoly over the distribution of (access to) digital books. For one thing, there are currently many other databases distributing electronic information, e.g. peer reviewed materials, via the Internet, like Proquest and EBSCO. If you want free full access to electronic copies of out-of-copyright, public domain books, turn to Project Gutenberg. The settlement covers only in-copyright, out-of-print books in the US thus far (but could change in the future, and some reports say books currently in print may be included with the author’s permission), and Google will simply help searchers find the book they are looking for, not provide full access (printing and copying) to the digitized version. Full access can only be acquired through paid subscription or purchase of a copy, either way Google and the authors/publishers split the proceeds in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement. With proper controls in place, Google won’t dare try to price its competitors out of the business of distributing electronic books.

True, Google’s book scanning technology may be formidable because it is state-of-the-art and is proprietary, giving it a big, and maybe unfair, advantage in the short term, over the digitization of books. However, there are already other existing means of distributing books in electronic format, like Amazon’s Kindle. And considering the rate of technological innovation, sooner or later a similar technology will emerge resting on some other company’s lap.

Ultimate monopoly is hindered also by the fact that there are near perfect substitutes for Google’s digital products. Cuddling up with a paperback or even a hardbound classic or a bestseller while curled in bed gives a totally different experience from reading from a monitor. I myself dumped into the recycle bin the free electronic format of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations that I downloaded from Project Gutenberg for a printed copy I found at a bookshop in Macau’s Senado Square. Besides, by the time you finish reading the latest bestseller on an e-book reader, your 20-20 vision would have probably gone askew. No wonder that US e-book sales in 2008 amounting to $113M remains a far cry from the $24.3B spent on all books.

Libraries and publishers are not totally calling for the repudiation of the Settlement, but rather for changes in its provisions. There are other issues related to access to and use of electronic information (which can be read here and here). Issues are crossing international borders, too, with different world governments joining the debate arena; the European Union has actually opted out of the Settlement. The debate will probably go on as more issues crop up but surely affected parties will eventually come up with solutions. What is certain is, this project is a boon to readers and researchers, and to the perpetuity of previously published knowledge and information. It would be a pity if we were deprived of this breakthrough in research technology.

Filed under: In the news, September 2009, Technology | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.