My book is mine, not Google's

06 October 2009 by Jeff Hecht
Magazine issue 2728. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
NEXT week details of a plan that could shape the future of books and publishing in the digital age will be spelled out in a New York courtroom. The plan is complex but, in a nutshell, search engine giant Google intends to scan and make available perhaps a million or more books that are out of print but still in copyright.
Google has the support of the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, but it faces formidable opposition. Some 400 legal objections have been filed, and the US Department of Justice has serious concerns. The dispute was due to be resolved in court next week, but at the last minute Google and its partners asked for the case to be adjourned so they could make revisions. A hearing will still take place, but only to inform the parties concerned how Google intends to proceed.
The case is the culmination of a process that got under way several years ago when Google began scanning books in research libraries to create a searchable archive. Libraries liked it; they saw it as a way to improve access, particularly to rarely used books. But authors and publishers did not. In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed a suit to block the scanning of copyrighted books.
Last year Google hammered out a deal with the authors and publishers which, at first sight, appeared to please everyone. Under the Google Book Settlement, the company would be allowed to scan out-of-print books still in copyright unless expressly asked not to by the copyright holder. That would greatly expand a treasure trove of information available to the serious researcher or the merely curious. Where else could I have learned that my great-great-grandfather was chief car builder for a small 19th-century railroad? Google also promised to supply every library in the US with a terminal for free public access, supported by advertising revenue.
Google also promised to come up with $125 million, partly to pay authors and publishers whose books it had scanned without permission before the settlement. On top of that, authors and publishers would receive 63 per cent of the income from the project.
Nobody would get rich, but authors would earn some money and their books would remain available indefinitely - an important concern for many. The deal would also make available "orphan works", books that are still in copyright but whose authors (or their heirs) can't be located.
Done deal? Far from it. The settlement - around 300 pages of mind-numbing legal jargon - was received with howls of protest. The justice department warned that the proposed settlement violated competition and copyright laws. Numerous groups filed objections, including the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Archive, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Amazon, Microsoft and the German government.
The objections cover a range of issues. Would Google gain a monopoly on copyrighted books that would make it the sole gatekeeper to a large body of knowledge? Could the deal limit authors' rights to control their own works? Would there be any protection for non-US authors? Why should authors be forced to go to the trouble of telling Google if they do not want their works to be copied, and why should Google be absolved from identifying copyright owners? Why should the Authors Guild be considered to speak for all authors? Why should Google alone be given the right to use orphan works? The list could go on for pages. The whole thing is reminiscent of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the interminable legal proceedings in Charles Dickens's novel Bleak House.
Perhaps the biggest concern is that the settlement in effect rewrites US copyright law - usurping the role that rightfully belongs to Congress. It would let Google keep on scanning while absolving it of liability should it fail to identify copyright owners or obtain their consent.
The plan in effect rewrites US copyright law, usurping a role that ought to belong to Congress
There are practical issues, too. Google has already bungled the job of compiling a list of every book published in the US since 1923, and thus still under US copyright. By including every record it could find, it managed to collect every data entry error made over the past 86 years.
I write technical books and short fiction in addition to magazine articles. Searching under my name, I have found a book never published and a bogus co-author, as well as editions never available in the US. Worse, Google keeps adding new entries, which authors must go through. While writing this piece, I found more than 20 new entries about me. I haven't written that many books.
It's not just me. I also found a listing for the 1924 master's thesis of a great-aunt who died long before my birth, plucked by Google from a library database. There's no evidence it was published, or that she registered the copyright. If Google can list that as an out-of-print but still in-copyright book then god only knows what else is in there.
Whatever we authors contribute to the sum of human knowledge and culture should pass into the public domain in a reasonable time after our death. That should be a few decades, not the 70 years or more granted by current UK copyright law, for example, which benefits only a handful of individuals and big entertainment companies.
A database of out-of-print books would be a fabulous resource. But balancing all the interests involved is a huge challenge. Copyright law also needs an overhaul. All that will take time, of course - but unless the groundwork is done right, it will remain a noble project that never sees the light of day.
Jeff Hecht is a New Scientist consultant based in Boston. He has written, co-written and edited a total of 12 books and is a member of the Authors Guild and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America
Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:
51 issues of New Scientist magazine
Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -
a benefit only available to subscribers
Great savings from the normal price
Subscribe now!
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, pleasecontact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Comment title
Your name
Email
Website
Comment

read all 51 comments
Comments 1 | 2 | 3
Google Can't Scan Properly
Wed Sep 30 22:19:28 BST 2009 by John Sharp

This only one side of the story.
I have downloaded a number of books which are over 100 years old, in my search for historical scientific and mathematical information.
Invariably, these books have folded plates in the back. They are never unfolded, and just scanned so that you may be lucky to see some of the diagrams.
This usually makes the scan of the book worthless and a complete waste of time and resources.
Other books have pictures of hands holding the book and fingers obscuring the text.
Google does not seem to be able to manage the process. Authors have more than just the copyright issues to worry about.
reply report this comment
Google Can't Scan Properly
Sat Oct 03 15:43:21 BST 2009 by Jeff Hecht

I had seen a finger or two, but hadn't noticed the missing plates because I wasn't familiar with the scanned books. I agree that's a serious problem, which reduces the usefulness of many scans, but I don't think it makes most of them 'worthless.' The big problem is that Google is trying to scan books on the cheap rather than properly, and in the process damaging the value of the resource they're creating
reply report this comment
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Google Can't Scan Properly
Tue Oct 06 12:02:57 BST 2009 by Think Again

Google scan is a great idea.
I love searching, finding, and reading a few pages, and it only makes me want to buy the book mre.
Publishers - adapt of die.
reply report this comment
1 more reply
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
4 more replies
Google Can't Scan Properly
Tue Oct 06 16:56:24 BST 2009 by Eric DeGolier

What's the problem? Most things are not done perfectly the first time. What is important is that Google is doing it and forcing these issues on the table so they can be addressed. If Google does it poorly and there is profit in having it done better then someone will come along and fill that need. To me this looks like an extremely ambitious project from Google that they won't necessarily benefit from. Do we have a right to demand perfection too?
As far as the article's arguments go I didn't understand why most of it was bad. Who gets hurt if your aunt's 1924 thesis is listed as out of publication when it was never published to begin with. Who gets hurt if Google's list of copyrighted books includes errors? If an author has some legal requirement to go through the list then I can see where this would be an inconvenience and they should be compensated. If not, what's the problem?
reply report this comment
Google Can't Scan Properly
Tue Oct 06 21:05:04 BST 2009 by Ed Bear

"Who gets hurt if Google's list of copyrighted books includes errors? "
Exactly! If they waited on perfection nobody would ever have published or released the human genome. Any database that big is going to be riddled with errors. The important thing is constant revisions over time.
reply report this comment
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Google Can't Scan Properly
Tue Oct 06 17:52:47 BST 2009 by Polemos
http://www.eschatopedia.webs.com
As the universe "expands," the volume of the universe's interior scales with the radius cubed. Since the total energy is constant, its density decreases, and the protons are forced to descend to lower levels of potenial energy, forming increasingly complex aggregates—atoms, molecules, people (because a bound system has a lower potential energy than its constituent parts). This process is exponentially acceleratinghttp://eschatopedia.webs.com/accelerationoftime.htm Within an interconnected system, information exchange is completely free. That is why Google will be allowed to scan the books, whether we want it or not.
reply report this comment
Google Can't Scan Properly
Tue Oct 06 18:02:15 BST 2009 by Polemos
http://www.eschatopedia.webs.com
Jeff Hecht: "Whatever we authors contribute to the sum of human knowledge and culture should pass into the public domain in a reasonable time after our death. That should be a few decades"
Polemos: Historical time has accelerated. A year now is equivalent to a few decades in the XIX century. Experts predict that by the year 2010, the amount of digital information will double every 11 hours. (long URL - click here)
That is why Google should be allowed to scan the books as it wants. The acceleration of time must be upheld.
reply report this comment
Google Can't Scan Properly
Tue Oct 06 18:40:39 BST 2009 by self-referential irony

What would happen if Google is not allowed to go ahead with this?
And Polemos, are you flagging my comments as objectionable which is causing their removal?
reply report this comment
7 more replies
view thread
Google Can't Scan Properly
Tue Oct 06 16:59:00 BST 2009 by webkinz cheat
http://www.webkinz-cheat.net
Surprisingly Microsoft had a far superior book search than Google. They killed it unfortunately. Google makes it very difficult to get the actual text of the book. Microsoft let users download a pdf of the book that included the OCR text.
Google doesn't really want any one else to have the data
reply report this comment
Google Can't Scan Properly
Tue Oct 06 23:08:09 BST 2009 by Mandy

Microsoft probably killed it because they couldn't make money out of it.
Google on the other hand are giving back something for free rather than trying to make money. Pardigm shifting mindset in action.
The only ones making money out of this are the authors, and the libraries who get the advertising revenue from the free terminals.
reply report this comment
view thread
Grandma's Books
Thu Oct 01 03:34:20 BST 2009 by LH Alley

My grandmother published 3 books, a small collection of articles and coloring books and newspaper pieces through her life as a journalist and writer. Only one is still in print and that is sold by Colonial Williamsburg, Inc in their bookstore. They purchased the right to it from her long ago.
To have her books and other works available again, other than as 2nd hand, would be wonderful. Not only did they have some perspective on her subject (The Surratt family and their boarding house in Washington DC where JW Booth lived at the time he assassinated Lincoln) they were a relatively good read. I don't care about the money, I'd just like to have her work easily available to me and her grand and great-grand children. As her great-great grand-daughter reaches reading age I would pay to have a copy printed if it were available. This would make this kind of thing more possible.
reply report this comment
Grandma's Books
Tue Oct 06 12:04:16 BST 2009 by SD

Scan them and upload them to a bittorrent tracker - there are many that specialise in ebooks and are far more useful to everyone than Google's service.
reply report this comment
view thread
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
view thread
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
view thread
read all 51 comments
Comments 1 | 2 | 3
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.