Quantcast

Don't have an account? Register Now! Forgot password?

Related Articles
Maximum IT
SEE MORE MAXIMUM IT
Columns

Byte Rights: From Orphans to Captives

Posted 04/03/09 at 05:30:40 PM  by Quinn Norton

comment Commentsprint Printemail EmailDeliciousDiggStumbleUponRedditFacebookSlashdot

Usually, I don’t write about Google, because googling it is so hard. But ambiguity isn’t enough to thwart my interest in Google’s recent movement in the world of books. Google Books (originally Google Print) has come to a settlement with publishers that will, in essence, make it the default collecting society for out-of-copyright books—with no congressional oversight.

It’s the result of 1337 legal hacking. In 2004 Google announced plans to scan in-copyright books that were part of university holdings, something no other book scanner had talked about doing. In 2005 the publishers and authors sued Google in a move that sent waves of not shocked at all through the copyright community. It was closely watched by sad copyright wonks (moi) as possibly defining fair use online.

Google skipped all that and instead suggested amassing a library no one could duplicate and selling the books. The publishers went along for a cut of the action. Thing is, because Google settled, it’s a deal only Google gets.

This leaves access to most 20th century books to one company. On the one hand, someone is finally scanning and making orphan works available to the world. Isn’t it better that they exist at all, even if it would take a crack team of pirating ninjas to sneak them out of the Google machine rooms?

Maybe not. Google has closed the door behind them, and other public-trust scanning projects, governmental and nonprofit, are left out in the cold.

Organizations like Openlibrary.org have always wanted to create a universal library for all. Google’s always wanted to control a universal library for all. As well it should be—Google is a company, and to the extent that it’s a steward of our cultural heritage, its first purpose is to make its shareholders richer. Doesn’t that sentence make you feel icky?

Some say companies are the best way to protect our culture. As a fan of the Library of Congress, NASA, NOAA, the USGS, the Park Service, etc., I disagree.

The deal still has to be approved by the 2nd Circuit Court in New York—then it’s one for the sad antitrust wonks to watch.

Quinn Norton writes about copyright for Wired News and other publications. Her work has ranged from legal journalism to the inner life of pirate organizations.

 

COMMENTS:4
TAGS: Google, columns, quinn norton, byte rights
COMMENTS
avatarShareholders richer, a company's purpose?

Submitted by tkid124 on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 5:43pm

First we will deal with the false idea that Google’s only job is to make its "shareholders richer". A company’s purpose is "to give the customer what they want at a profit." Larry R. O'Neal, Ph.D., Associate Professors of Marketing, Nelson Rusche College of Business, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Tx. A profit is vital; a company can't serve a consumer if it is out of business.

So big bad old Google is trying to make its shareholders rich, actually the article misplaces the blame if this deal does go through. Google actions lead me to see an issue in its future; it wants to become to the internet what Adobe was to PDF, almost everything. Yes there was Foxit Reader, and a few others, but Adobe cornered the market, kind of like Microsoft. Adobe like Google doesn't charge, Adobe unlike Google has handed off the PDF format standards to the ISO.

So if Google is blame free, for now, then who should we send the big angry mob at (after they are done with AGI and congress), why not the publishers.

 -Who agreed to the deal?
 -Who agreed for just a cut of the action?
 -Who's job is it to insure that their customers get the best service at the best price?

The publishers. Google is headed towards having a majority share of the market, it must be careful in its future deals with the instability inside the court room, all of its decisions must be based upon the knowledge that it takes one judge and a trash lawsuit to destroy the company, it's stock, and all the work it has contributed, (best email, best search, best homepage) to the internet culture.

So Miss Norton if you have an issue with Google being wise, granting access to its customers in a new format, you are anti-business. If you like I have an issue that they are now the only one to be able to grant this access, get mad at the right people, those darn publishers.

Preston A. Vickrey
Marketing Junior
Nelson Rusche College of Business
SFASU, Texas

Login or register to post comments
avatarI think she makes a good

Submitted by shellpc on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:44pm

I think she makes a good point.

 A company's first duty is to its shareholders, not public interest. Its a bit scary that a company would have exclusive rights to how something like this is digitally distributed.

Login or register to post comments
avatarI could do with less

Submitted by roninnder on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 8:32pm

I could do with less articles from this moping communist.

Login or register to post comments
avatarAgree

Submitted by plaskon on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 9:16am

And her writing style is clunky to read.

Login or register to post comments

This Month's Issue
Maximum PC
SUBSCRIBE NOW
AND SAVE!
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works