Difference Between Google Print & Google Library
SEW has a well written piece by Danny explaining the differences between what he calls "Google Library" and "Google Print". I think it has clarifed my knowledge as to what is going on here. If my conclusions are wrong, it will not take long for someone here to draw it to our attention.
Google Print was launched with the full cooperation of participating publishers. In October 2004, Google make it possible to see the full-text of books in varying amounts according to what publishers themselves chose to display, not what Google decided it wanted to make available.
The Google Print Program for Publishers project isn't part of Google Library. It's the preexisting program that allows publishers who wish (and plenty do) to make their content available through Google Print and viewable to the degree they want to show. There's nothing controversial about that program in terms of copyright issues. Publishers who want to participate can and do. Publishers who don't want to participate stay out of the program.
Google Library launched in December 2004, with the goal of scanning books (both in and out of copyright) in public libraries and making them searchable. But unlike with Google Print's publisher program, Google Library gathered content up without publishers giving permission. But that is all it does, scans. It then sends them on to Google print.
Google Library simply makes the content of a book searchable. You can go to the Google Print site, maybe find a matching book scanned through Google Library,but you won't see anything from that book unless the book publisher has given explicit permission for this. The only exception to this is if the book is out of copyright.Google Library is helping Google create that type of searchable index of books, that feeds into Google Print -- but Google Print does not let you then pull the book off the virtual shelf and read it online unless a publisher has explicitly given permission.
So, as I understand Danny, Google is not being sued over Google Print. It's being sued over Google Library. In other words sued because it is scanning books without the publishers permission, not because it is making the books available online - because apparently it is not allowing copyright books to be made available when they arrive at Google Print unless the publisher agrees.
What the publishers object to is that the scanning is being done, and the information sits on Googles hard drives, unused, but like the nuclear bomb, could be used if G presses the red button. The publishers want the red button disarmed.
It would appear that Google have had another of their PR disasters here, and allowed themselves to have been painted blacker than necessary. Silly things like their duffing up Peter Pan have not helped their image here. Another job for their new Chief Spin Doctor?
copyright expiry?
I'm sure someone (probably Danny/Chris) have addressed this somewhere but whats the deal on copyright? I thought it was on a per country basis and may be expired in some places and not in others. So, er, how are they dealing with that? Or is US law now international law as far as Google Print's concerned?
copyright varies
Gurtie, Google employs a complicated system known as CopyrightRank where by spinning a large wheel, Google can simultaneously alter the results it shows at data centers around the world to help spur search forum traffic while also moving copyright around from a few years to a few decades.
Seriously, they explain it to some degree here:
http://print.google.com/googleprint/publisher_library.html#policy1
The idea is that they'll follow different copyright laws in different places. Of course, some of that's pretty silly. Take the Peter Pan case. I'm still catching up on that, but the UK copyright seems to be non-expiring, while in other countries, the book is legally out of copyright.
So here's Peter Pan at Google Print. The Signet copy I can't read more than a few pages, since it was provided by Signet and they claim copyright. Same for all the others I've seen.
I'm guessing this means Google has yet to scan an out-of-copyright edition through the library program. When that happens, the I'd suppose they'd try to ensure those in the UK couldn't read it while those elsewhere might be able to.
In part, they can do this because to read full text, you have to be signed into Google. But I also suspect that anyone who really wants to will find a way to fake their location.
What the safe harbor to cover all copyright issues in all countries is, I don't know!
so really
the sooner Google buys a small country, sets up its own legal system and runs all of its services under GoogleLaw the simpler this is going to be....
I guess
My question about all this is why google does not purchase the copyrighted books from the publishers, instead of copying them for free out of a library?
I can understand using the library to scan books out of copyright, but a $90 Billion company that won't spend a very small amount to purchase books that they (intend) to make a profit using is more than a little lame.
Im not a legal expert, but it seems to me that if google were to buy copies of the books they want to copy (that are still in copyright) they would have a much stronger position to claim fair use than if they just stole copies from a library.
buying the books
wouldn't solve the problem. the publishers wouldn't see owning the book as giving google the right to scan the book.
but i agree with you and wrote something similar about this earlier, it would be interesting if google did buy the actual books and operated a virtual library of its own. if i can lend books to people in a library legally, why wouldn't i be able to let someone "check out" a book in the same way online. why is going to a library, reading a book for free, somehow not theft then?
..
Never really thought of it like that.
Interesting idea... An online library that makes money (profit) from advertising. Let people DL the entire book, but put a time key on it, like a library 'return' date and run contextual adverts at the top, bottom and sides of the page when the book is being read...
libraries are non-profit
libraries are non-profit
not all libraries
are non-profit. not at all. go to any major newspaper, and they've got a library for reporters. i used them all the time, grabbing books, periodicals.
go to a private university. non-profit? private universities make money. one reason people go to them is the quality of the libraries. so they give a bunch of books away, that is part of their attraction, but it's not entirely a free thing.
go to any major coporation, and you bet they've got a well funded private library. They aren't buying a copy of books for everyone in the firm. They're quite happy to buy one book and share it around.
The crux of all this is simple. No publishers seriously expected anyone to begin ripping books in the way we rip CDs. That's what Google is doing, ripping books. It was hard enough for the music industry to cope, but at least it was used to lots of its content being electronic - that's what a CD is. And it grew used to people sharing CDs by copying tapes. TV, the same situation. To some degree, film. And you're seeing the rapid change in business model, with the idea you'll rent CDs, you'll buy TV shows online cheap (look at CBS today).
The book industry was in no way, shape or form ready for this. And even though Google's not reprinting books, not really putting them out in a way to be copied, it's like dragging someone who never dealt with electricity into a modern home. At least the music and tv industries understood what electricty was and didn't freak out at the idea that lights come on with a switch. The publishing industry is ancient, has no real business model beyond selling books.
I mean -- and real rant time now -- I love books. Absolutely love them. I have tons and tons and don't hesitate to buy anything one I want. But I hate hardbacks. So why do I have to sit around and wait for the latest installment of some sci-fi series I love? Not because I can't afford to buy the hardback. Just because I don't want it. But I have to wait months until the expensive hardback makes the publisher money, then they can move to a paperback. And just forget getting an ebook or print on demand. I mean, come on.
Give it ten years, and they'll be dragged into new pricing models. That's what you're seeing Amazon do with the two new on demand print models it is rolling out next year. And honestly, since Google Print is driving traffic to Amazon, the publishers really would benefit.
But that doesn't matter when they basically see Google as being arrogant in not working with them. And legally, I think Google probably will be found to be correct. I don't think it needs permission to scan books any more than it scans web pages, and I find it hypocritcal in the extreme when publishers complain that copyright is different for their books but have no robots.txt files up and file no suits over the past ten years to keep their copyright protected web pages out of Google. My copyright as a web author is no less important than when I put it in paper, thank you very much.
But arrogant or being legally correct doesn't mean you win friends. Google could have -- and should have -- considered other options before pressing ahead with the program. Doesn't mean a court case wouldn't ultimately have resulted, but things could have been a lot better.
Best thing out of this is the OCA alliance that's got Yahoo, MSN and other scanning programs now working together. Gary and I have both written that we've found having all these different projects do their own thing to be wasteful. If we're going to index the world's books, let's not have a multitude of companies all replicate efforts.
"expensive hardback makes the publisher money,"
Its in intersting point, that.
The business model in the film industry is to release a film to the cinemas, then when that traffic wanes, release the DVD, often with whistles and bells. The DVD itself has a "home" version, and a "rental" version". The DVDs are copyright protected.
The book industry ought to be thinking of a business model that releases a hardback copy, goes on to paperback, then releases a eBook. The cost today of doing the eBook is small, given that it must exist electronically to start with for printing. They would make money themseves from their books that way.
I am aware that this does not solve the problem of people, like Google, copying books, but there is usually a way to make money on the web. In addition the scanners like Google would start to appear to the public as back street pirate copiers.
it'll be fun
to see how things change. I mean, sell the DVD when the movie comes out. I just took my kids to see a movie in a cinema. The minute we left, they wanted to watch it again on DVD. "Can we get it when the DVD comes out?" they asked me. Spoiled rotten, sure I'm gonna get it. Well, maybe. I mean, in three months, will a really decide I need that copy of Sky High? But imagine I buy my movie ticket and get a DVD as part of the deal at a slightly discounted price?