Not surprisingly, two publishing associations have strongly objected to Google's
latest plan for Google Print For Libraries. A few
weeks ago Google announced that it would cease scanning books in libraries, giving publishers time to opt out of the
program. Everybody realized the contrariness (and, frankly, arrogance presumption) of this proposition, as it
directly opposes the principle of American copyright law, which protests the creator and demands that licenser opt in
to the creator's requirements. The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) and the
Association of American University Presses (AAUP) have
blasted Google for its apparent intention to sweep
publishers (many of them oblivious, no doubt) into the Google Print database.
In SEW Danny Sullivan takes a challenging approach to the publishers' opposition and relates a Q&A he had with a representative from the ALPSP. Danny remarks: "And I guess all I'm saying is that those publishers, if they try to push this angle with Google via a lawsuit, had better be prepared for explaining why they've never complained about having their web sites indexed by Google for years without permission." But this attitude, too, ignores basic copyright principle. Here is how the publishers could respond: "We chose not to dispute Web indexing; we choose to dispute book indexing." Copyright owners don't need to justify their business priorites to make copyright infringement claims, as far as I know. It is the content owner's prerogative to control the content, even if that means allowing copyright liberties in some cases and not allowing them in others.
Danny continues: "One interesting solution will be to see if Google simply goes out and buys a copy of every book it wants to offer in its virtual library. If libraries are OK lending books, Google might argue that it's creating a card catalog of books in its collection." I think a couple of hard-hitting lawsuits would cure Google of its copyright arrogance. Companies have been sued out of business (think of the original MP3.com) for making similar bets.
Danny seems to think that Google's Web indexing practices are inviolable, and therefore should set the standard of what's allowable in other types of indexing. That could be how it gets played out. But I think it's also possible that Google will eventually endure significant setbacks by the accumulated damage of multiple lawsuits (the Perfect 10 suit might have capricious aspects, but it definitely raises broad copyright questions).
UPDATE: One representative of a publishing association is pessimistic that a lawsuit can be avoided.
1. I don't Google's indexing policies -- indeed, the entire search engine industry's policies -- are inviolable. I don't even know if they are legal. What I do know is that simplistic to say Google is "arrogant" because it makes a full text copy of a book but somehow assume that making a full text copy of a copyrighted web page isn't an issue. I'm also not a copyright expert, so I can't comment on your idea that a business owner may be fine allowing copyright "liberties" in some cases and not others. But I think it's only common sense that if you haven't minded allowing Google to index your web content for years, you're going to have an odd battle when you go to court and suddenly say that book content is somehow special. Moreover, go back and look at what the ALPSP said. They didn't say "we choose to dispute book indexing" only. They said making copies without explicit permission beforehand is wrong. Well, if it's wrong -- then it's wrong whether you deal with books or the web.
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Danny Sullivan