[LINK] Google and the future of books

Michael Skeggs mike@bystander.net mskeggs at gmail.com
Thu Feb 5 11:56:15 AEDT 2009


On 05/02/2009, Anthony Hornby wrote:
> Monopolies are always a bad thing ....still, I think the author did
> try hard to provide a balanced view.

See also Brewster Kahle on a digital library:
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/brewster_kahle.php

I think the gist of the NYRB article Anthony posted about a Google monopoly
is probably not as scary as it could be, even if you assumed Google reversed
its motto to "must do evil".
The argument goes that the class action settlement establishes a default
compensation for any rights infringed by Google, which publishers can accept
or opt out of. The mechanism is via the creation of a central body for
copyright payments - to me it looks similar to what APRA does for music.
This makes it hard for a competitor to mimic Google's business model of
digitizing then displaying books online supported by advertising, as Google
has the head start on the scanning, and can presumably under cut a later
entrant, and a competitor would have to negotiate its own deal with the
central rights body.
I don't think it is a big deal for several reasons:
- it really only applies to in-copyright, but out-of-print books, works that
are not in high demand by definition. We can also guess that 'one day' they
may end up in the public domain, assuming no repeat of the Sonny Bono
nonsense.
- We can also assume books published now, or at least in the near future,
will include a provision to keep them at least nominally in print (via
e-books or POD) so they will stay out of scope, so the pool of books at
stake is likely to decline with time.
- If Google starts doing something icky, publishers can opt out.
- If Google starts delivering a service that fails to meet its user's needs,
a competitor can strike deals with publishers directly, or with he central
rights manager.

Regards,
Michael Skeggs



More information about the Link mailing list