Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
November 3, 2005, 8:50 am
rate this thread
Reining in Google
By Pat Schroeder/Bob Barr
Published November 3, 2005
You're probably reading the byline above and wondering, "What could
these two, from opposite sides of the aisle in Congress, possibly have
in common with each other?"
The answer is when it comes to Google's Print Library Project we
have much in common: We're both authors and both believe intellectual
property should actually mean something.
And so we find ourselves joining together to fight a $90 billion
company bent on unilaterally changing copyright law to their benefit
and in turn denying publishers and authors the rights granted to them
by the U.S. Constitution.
Internet behemoth Google, plans to launch their Library project in
November. It plans to scan the entire contents of the Stanford, Harvard
and University of Michigan libraries and make what it calls "snippets"
of the works available online, for free.
The creators and owners of these copyrighted works will not be
compensated, nor has Google defined what a "snippet" is: a paragraph? A
page? A chapter? A whole book? Meanwhile Google will gain a huge new
revenue stream by selling ad space on library search results. Selling
ads on its search engine is how Google makes 99 percent of its
Not only is Google trying to rewrite copyright law, it is also
crushing creativity. If publishers and authors have to spend all their
time policing Google for works they have already written, it is hard to
create more. Our laws say if you wish to copy someone's work, you must
get their permission. Google wants to trash that.
Google's position essentially amounts to a license to steal, so
long as it returns the loot upon a formal request by their victims.
This is precisely why Google's argument has no basis in U.S.
intellectual property law or jurisprudence. Just because Google is
huge, it should not be allowed to change the law.
Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt has argued the "fair
use" provision in copyright law allows Google to scan copyrighted books
and put them on their Web site without seeking permission. He compares
this to someone at home taping a television show and watching it later.
Taped TV show are watched in millions of households every night and is
quite legal; rebroadcasting that show to make a buck is not.
Next time Dr. Schmidt watches television, he should keep his ears
open for the common disclaimer "rebroadcast of this program without the
express written consent of" the broadcaster is "prohibited." Google's
plans are tantamount to the same thing, profiting from someone else's
work without permission. It isn't up to the broadcaster to track down
someone profiting from their work, why should it be up to publishers
and authors to do so?
Authors may be the first targets in Google's drive to make the
intellectual property of others a cost-free inventory for delivery of
its ad content, but we will hardly be the last. Media companies,
engineering firms, software designers, architects, scientists,
manufacturers, entertainers and professional services firms all produce
products that could easily be considered for "fair use" by Google.
Google envisions a world in which all content is free; and of
course, it controls the portal through which Internet user's access
that content. It would completely devalue everyone else's property and
massively increase the value of its own.
The company contends it will allow authors of copyrighted works to
"opt-out" of the free online library by notifying Google they don't
want their works online. Most authors and publishers do not know who
bought their books. And have you ever tried to get a live person on the
phone at an Internet company?
And so, five publishing companies on behalf of the entire
publishing industry and the Author's Guild have filed two major
lawsuits against Google seeking to stop this plan and deter such
conduct in the future.
Politically, we may not agree on much. But on this, we can both
agree: These lawsuits are needed to halt theft of intellectual
property. To see it any other way is intellectually dishonest.
Pat Schroeder is president of the Association of American
Publishers and a former member of Congress from Colorado. Bob Barr, a
former member of the House Judiciary Committee, is an author, newspaper
columnist and analyst for CNN.