The Chatterbox

Sunday Funnies & Google Print

Okay, so it happened a few days ago. I'm just getting around to catching up on some of these news headlines ! LOL

Anyway, here's my (slightly more humorous) take on the Associated Press story about Google Print declaring a temporary halt to its Library Scanning Project. The AP story references an announcement from Google's Adam Smith, but doesn't provide a link to it. For your convenience, here is said announcement, found under the strikingly Orwellian title of Making Books Easier To Find.

The gist of the announcement is a change that is being made to the Scanning part of Google Print. They're giving the authors (how are they going to positively verify that someone is the actual author?) opportunity to opt out of the program if they would like, or they can opt out some of their titles but leave others included.

It's a gracious gesture on Google's part, and is in perfect agreement with Google's approach to everything else they do with indexing web pages. But it's still problematic. And has raised the ire of many authors and publishers.

My own view is that this new way of doing things smacks of the same disaster-in-the-making that I ranted about months ago regarding the Google Autolink feature they integrated into the Google Toolbar. In both cases everything was going to be automatically opted in, whether the author wanted to be a part of the program or not. At least Google Print is giving authors of published works the ability to Opt Out. Autolink doesn't afford that option.

Is this the way Google has always done things? Yes it is. It's part of their culture, me thinks. It's definitely part of their internal policy based upon everything I've ever heard them say or read in their official statements.

And see, that's where the problem lies.

Google is apparently unaware of how Copyright works. Or they think they're some special case, which is patently untrue.

Copyright affords an author immediate protection of their works. They law states that the author need do nothing else to gain this protection. It is immediate and automatic, and there is no mention of any Opting Out process.

Indeed, it is the exact opposite of Google's new procedure. In order for the author's work to be disseminated the author would have to grant a license for use, or in Web-speak the author would have to Opt In!

As noted in some comments by Patricia Schroeder, CEO of the Association of American Publisher, that were published yesterday, Google's Opt Out policy "shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning the principle of copyright law on its ear."

I agree. So do the courts.

Jonathan Spira, chief analyst of an IT research firm called Basex, which focuses on knowledge sharing and creation adds, "Google does not enjoy a natural immunity from copyright law. The way Google approached the relationship with publishers and authors did nothing to assuage the feelings of the copyright holders."

Again, I agree whole-heartedly.

My personal view is thus...

If something is produced on the web in such a way that it is publicly available I have no issues with Google's normal policy of spidering and including snippets of the text in their search engine. Even though these snippets are placed right next to Ads that Google gets paid for. I simply do not consider this to be copyright infringement.

But on the other hand, and I say this even though I rather like the concept of Google Print's mission statement, whenever you're talking about taking the proactive action of scanning works which do not appear on the Web, you've stepped over the line. You've changed the nature of the work by changing methods of access to these copyright protected works.

In this type of case Google needs to take a serious look at their internal policies and change them. It should not be Opt Out if you're an author and do not want your works included. Instead nothing should be included until and unless Google has received verifiable communication from the copyright holder that grants them license to re-publish these works digitally.

The same holds true if Google is altering content, even if it is already publicly available on the Web. Ala Autolink.

The key being that any time Google, or anybody else for that matter, takes proactive actions that change the nature of copyrighted material, they first need to gain permission to do so. Whether this actually changes the content --Autolink-- or the simply changes the way in which it is accessed --Google Print.

This is simply a case where Google's internal policies is mistaken. They are not above the law. They need to realize this fact and alter their internal policies and procedures, as well as the way they do things immediately. Better to take those actions now rather than wait until they end up in court trying to defend how they've tried to change copyright law.