Big publishers are suing Google over its plans to scan copyrighted works in libraries for use in its Google Print program.
But self-published authors appear to be voting with their feet, and opting into Google’s program because they know it will generate more awareness of their books and increase sales.
Google maintains that its scanning of copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” doctrine of U.S. copyright law, which allows non-licensed incorporation of copyrighted material by “libraries and archives” — if the archive is open to the public and a notice of copyright appears with the protected work.
So far, so good. But another stipulation in the copyright law requires the copying be made “without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.” Clearly, Google is seeking a commercial advantage through assembling its Print archive. At the least, the search firm wants to strengthen its control over the direction of Web traffic.
And here is the heart of the matter: Publishers are afraid of losing control of how their products are discovered by readers. If more consumers begin learning about book titles through Web searches instead of shopping in bookstores, Google can gain control over retail sales of books. Already, Google’s Print pages point readers to online stores like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and of course Froogle, its own retail platform.
The company line on Google Print is that it’s in the business of helping people find information, “and there’s too much information in books that cannot yet be found online.”
“We think you should be able to search through every word of every book ever written, and come away with a list of relevant books to buy or find at your local library,” Google said in a recent post to the company’s official blog.
Perhaps the big publishers should be developing an alternative to Google Print, instead of throwing up temporary roadblocks like its lawsuit alleging copyright infringement.
Self-publishing authors see ‘fair use’ in Google Print
Big publishers are suing Google over its plans to scan copyrighted works in libraries for use in its Google Print program.
But self-published authors appear to be voting with their feet, and opting into Google’s program because they know it will generate more awareness of their books and increase sales.
Google maintains that its scanning of copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” doctrine of U.S. copyright law, which allows non-licensed incorporation of copyrighted material by “libraries and archives” — if the archive is open to the public and a notice of copyright appears with the protected work.
So far, so good. But another stipulation in the copyright law requires the copying be made “without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.” Clearly, Google is seeking a commercial advantage through assembling its Print archive. At the least, the search firm wants to strengthen its control over the direction of Web traffic.
And here is the heart of the matter: Publishers are afraid of losing control of how their products are discovered by readers. If more consumers begin learning about book titles through Web searches instead of shopping in bookstores, Google can gain control over retail sales of books. Already, Google’s Print pages point readers to online stores like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and of course Froogle, its own retail platform.
The company line on Google Print is that it’s in the business of helping people find information, “and there’s too much information in books that cannot yet be found online.”
“We think you should be able to search through every word of every book ever written, and come away with a list of relevant books to buy or find at your local library,” Google said in a recent post to the company’s official blog.
Perhaps the big publishers should be developing an alternative to Google Print, instead of throwing up temporary roadblocks like its lawsuit alleging copyright infringement.
New in paperback: The Home-Based Bookstore: Start Your Own Business Selling Used Books on Amazon, eBay or Your Own Web Site (by Steve Weber)
Related posts: