Google Print: Is it good or bad?
Posted 19 Sep, 2005 at 12:26 by blue in /Books | Permanent link
That seems to be the question being argued amongst publishers.
For those who haven't heard of this endeavour from Google, Google Print is a project to scan in and make searchable all print publications. A good article on the current debate can be found on CNN today.
A couple of notable points I found interesting or amusing:
One quote states "For a typical author, obscurity is a far greater threat than piracy," said Tim O'Reilly, chief executive of O'Reilly Media... which I would have to agree with. The vast majority of writers will never see their work published. Then again, while they may not mind the work being 'copied and distributed' I think a lot of them still fear 'copied and claimed'.
The article states that Publishers won't rule out a lawsuit against Google. which brings to mind all kinds of similarities to the RIAA and so on. The organizations that profit from... er... I mean... defend the rights of... artists always seem to be opposed to these sort of distribution methods while the artists/writers themselves seem more open to new delivery channels.
But perhaps the best quote in the article was this, from another publisher, who felt it was unfair of Google to ask for a list of books which the publishers did not want to share (and hence, Google would not scan... kind of a negative-sales tactic). The publisher stated "We're not aware of everything we've published," Sanfilippo said. "Back in the 50s, 60s and 70s, there were no electronic files for those books." Hmm... so you're not aware of everything you've published, yet you'll defend to the death your right to not let others copy it. Seems to me that if Google simply scanned this man's books, he'd be able to figure out which ones are his by entering a search. But hey... that's just me.