So,
If you’re following along, Google Print has been sued by two publishers for copyright infringement.
Google Print is scanning books, creating an index of the books, and allowing people to search the index.
When a match is found, Google Print displays a small snippet of the text from the book (i.e., not even a whole page).
So, Google Print is arguing that they are copying the whole book, but their copy is only used to create an index of the book and their display of a fragment falls under fair use.
The book publishers are arguing that a copy is a copy and that they have the right to control how any copy is made for any purpose.
Bzzt. Wrong. Copyright is a “limited grant of monopoly”. It’s not a property right, like owning a house. It’s a right made of intangible concepts created by society.
So, the question is, is it good for society to have an Internet library that can instantly search the worlds books? Even if that means some copying is going on?
Remember, the idea of copyright is to prevent someone from destroying the market value of a work by providing copies. As google doesn’t actually let anyone see the whole copy of a book, book publishers aren’t loosing sales.
The real thorn in the side of these publishers is that google is going to make money by selling ads that are displayed along side the search results and the publishers aren’t going to get a penny from that.
In other words, the publishers think that they are entitled to collect a rent on any money made from the use of their works. So, Borders better start handing over some of that coffee shop revenue. Oh, and I’m going to ring Rand-McNally and demand they pay me for including my property in their maps. Those rascals!
Technorati Tags: copyright