By Edward Nawotka
Judge Denny Chin
Well, while I was at jury duty, my fellow publishing reporters in New York flooded the courtroom of Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan who was hearing arguments on the legality of Google Books’ plan to digitize all the world’s books. A total of 26 different speakers offered their take on the Settlement: Five spoke in favor and 21 were against, writes Andrew Albanese of Publishers Weekly.)
Following the day of argument, “U.S. attorney William Cavanaugh slammed the Google settlement, telling Judge Denny Chin that the class action vehicle was inappropriate, and that the settlement ‘turned copyright on its head,’” writes Albanese. Cavanaugh emphasized that Department of Justice has an “ongoing antitrust investigation” regarding the settlement, suggesting that if the judge does approve the the settlement, the DOJ might take it’s own action. For their part, Google’s advocates stressed that the Settlement offered unprecedented protection for the all those potentially impacted and settles the issue of their previous scanning.
At the end of the day, it seems unlikely that no matter what Judge Chin rules, the matter won’t be settled.
Could the Google Books Case end up in the Supreme Court? (We’re not alone in thinking that it might.)
2 Comments
My guess is that it will go that far, since a corporation as large as Google has more than enough money to push.
Google has an incentive to generate money from ad revenues, and exploiting titles via freebie books to the public are a great way to generate page visits. Authors and publishers have an incentive to keep their work properly within copyright constraints as a vehicle for revenue generated from their work.
There is a fundamental at-odds commercial dynamic here that should be closely examined.
Further, the digital age (and the advent of print on demand capabilities) puts the words “out-of-print” out of our language. This new reality ALONE flattens Google’s argument and should reign them into the appropriate realm of copyright negotiation with individual authors/publishers.
More and more authors will begin publishing their own work. Individuals require much less in sales volume than large publishing houses to keep a title viable. THIS is what is good for the public. THIS is what makes new literature accessible. Maybe Google sees this inevitability and is making the ‘big grab’ before knowledge of print-on-demand technology becomes common. They would be in a position to see the potential. Probably more than traditional publishers, many of whom are still living in denial and looking to capitalize on crumbs in the race toward digitized content.
Beyond that, Google advances the perception that it is conducting a service to the public by furthering access to scanned works – regardless of proper negotiation with stakeholders.
IF this were true and Google WERE offering such a important service to the public, there is implied value in that service. By association, there is value inherent in and extended to the very works presented to the public. Where there is value, there must be compensation unless the work is donated to such cause.
Imagine what a pro-Goggle Supreme Court decision would do for Google and any other competitor who wished to perform a likewise SERVICE to the public by making printed matter available for free in order to generate ad revenues for themselves in the process.
In a decision favorable to big business, the Supreme Court recently decided to allow corporate entities to broadcast campaign ads unfettered. From a purely commercial corporate perspective, Google would be foolish not to throw some dollars behind their push for free content. Given the current political landscape, who knows what they might win. In a risk / benefit analysis (given enough spin to curtail public perception) the answer is clear. What have they got to lose?
And therein is a big part of this problem.
What I find amazing is that libraries, as well as Google, are arguing that without Google everyone needs “physical proximity” to access library books. Surely they’ve heard of interlibrary loan, and the databases that facilitate it, such as WorldCat?