Google Print

William Rees-Mogg has an interesting Comment piece in today’s Times on the future of the fastest-growing company ever entitled Grow up, Google.

He describes his small academic publishing company and claims that Google is threatening to overthrow the whole concept of copyright and thus put him out of business. Not only is the big G on a course to crush poor Lord Rees-Mogg’s livelihood, but apparently put and end to all innovation (“No copyright � no revenue � no innovation.”)

Much has been written about Google, and more specially Google Print, and their regard to copyright law. In one of the first legal tests of their technology, last week a US district court ruled in their favour in respect to their cache. The use of the material in a cache was deemed fair in a case that has a number of similarities to Google Print: selected copying and holding of copyrighted works where it is up to the author to opt-out.

This strikes to the heart of the matter as I see it: copyright is a privilege granted to creators of works, in that society agrees to afford them certain rights for a period of time, in return for public use after that period has expired. It must have a sensible framework that responds to the needs of society and the artists, and, if last week’s ruling is anything to go by, the courts agree on this.

It is not as if Google is actually threatening to end copyright; by employing the fresh technologies and a rather radical approach to information, they are stretching the possible realm of copyright into new paradigms. But, content creators have to realise that there must be limits to their control. There must be possibilities for fair use.

It would be nice to see content creators and artist groups realise that the new possibilities for using and accessing their material offers a realm of new possibilities for them and consumers may be fight back against over-zealous control [Sony?].

Google Print should mean more and more people finding the value in established print media. In the days of misleading blogs and suspect entries on Wikipedia, the public will probably finally get better at judging value and authority. This can only be good for society, informed debate, and quality publishers.

Forgetting about all these grandiose ideas, Google is essentially applying the rules that have evolved in the online world (caching, linking, listing, implied permissions of use) to the print world. That can only be a good thing (dependence on sensible thinking implied).
—–