I might piss off a friend with this post. If so, I apologize in advance.Google has a plan. Well, Google actually has many plans but this plan specifically has to do with digitizing books, lots of books and making them searchable.
As a internet-phile and as a former student who did a lot of researching in her time, I find this idea very attractive. I remember sitting on the floor in the library with books stacked up around me, searching indexes for what I thought were very intuitive search words and totally striking out. I might be exaggerating but through the haze of memory, I recall the time spent on researching as being largely wasted.
So little return on my investment of so much time.
Google proposes to digitize books, make them searchable and provide snippets,
basic information about the book, similar to a card catalog, and, in some cases, a few snippets -- sentences of your search terms in context.
What a boon for researchers, educators, enthusiasts and the authors and publishers whose books are found by these researchers, educators and enthusiasts.
I find what I'm looking for much more quickly and then I still have to buy the book or go to the library to get full access.
And yet, publishers and authors are concerned. They're worried about copyright infringement.
I'm afraid I don't understand why. I've read the complaints and the concerns (as well as a defense) but I don't get it.
Or perhaps I just don't agree.
As Google has proposed the project, it seems like a win-win. I get much quicker information about works that I didn't even know existed and authors and publishers get much wider exposure.
Perhaps my assessment is simplistic. But it seems pretty straightforward to me.
6 comments:
Since I suspect I'm the one you're worried about pissing off, don't be. This is a volatile issue and one wherein folks are entitled to their own opinions.
I've spelled out my opposition to this program ad nauseum in my blog and won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that my objection is to making any portion of my copyrighted work available to anyone without being paid for the privilege. The Google plan permits portions of pages to be displayed for free. That's what I object to. And it's what I will continue to object to until the cows come home....if it's done without the author's permission, it's copyright infringement, pure and simple.
As I have not given permission and do not intend to do so, any such recreation of even one word of my copyrighted work constitutes copyright infringement.
Now, if Google wants to pay me royalties, then fine, scan away. However, I, for one, will not be a party to Google making money at my expense.
Make sense?
Eric
My curiosity forces me to ask: Would you feel the same way if Google weren't involved; if the libraries were digitizing their own collections?
If they were disseminating my intellectual property on the Internet for free without my permission? You bet I would.
Eric
But if they were only making their digitized collection available to their library patrons? Would it matter if I had to be onsite or if I could log in using my library card from home? What about fair use?
I know you feel strongly about this (and that as a published author, you have a vested interest in this) and my questions are coming from much more of a place of idle curiosity so please feel free to end this conversation if you start to get annoyed with me.
I would have the same problem.
Let me be clear about this. I think that the idea of digitizing works that are in the public is a fabulous idea, and I wholeheartedly support it. I've made use of it myself.
Why is that okay, you ask? Because these materials are no longer covered by copyright, and nobody is being stolen from as a result.
From my perspective, it doesn't matter who does the digitizing. If a digitized version of my entire copyrighted work is made available for free, what's the point of writing? It's theft, just as Napster stole from musicians.
My beliefs about this very closely mirror the arguments against Napster, and for mostly the same reasons.
Eric
But . . .
I'm not suggesting that it's ok to make a digitized version of your entire copyrighted work available for free. I completely agree with you that this would be bad, theft, etc.
However, would you object if a university library, which has purchased your work, digitizes that work and makes it possible for a researcher, sitting at a computer in the university library, to use a search engine, which provides only snippets, to ascertain whether or not your work might prove useful to his/her research?
Post a Comment