 |
|
On the Web
|
Google Gift to Digital Library
New York Times: 11/22/05
A Man's Vision: World Library Online
San Francisco Chronicle: 11/22/05
At Harvard, a Man, a Plan and a Scanner
New York Times: 11/21/05
Want War & Peace Online?
New York Times: 11/4/05
LIVE from the NYPL:
Authors and Publishers Take on the Google Print Library Project:
Thursday, November 17 |
|
|
|
 |
|
PEN Members sound off
|
I see nothing but good coming from this project. No writers and no publishers are going to lose money. [more]
This is a high-tech literary version of the initial version of music
sharing, Napster, which was eventually found to be in violation of
copyright law, and which eventually dealt a near death blow to the
music industry. [more]
To limit, and curtail, the parameters of the Internet, and technology, would be like trying to put braces on a comet. [more]
Click here for more responses from PEN Members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERSHIP FORUM
|
|
We've recently launched this
Forum as a place where our members can offer their
opinions about current issues affecting writers today. Our first
Forum focuses on the Google Print Library Project and the
subsequent lawsuits now pending in court. Read background information below, then follow links to selected responses from PEN Members and a Forum questionnaire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FALL FORUM: The Google Print Library Project
|
Last year, Google—the company with the avowed mission “to organize the
world’s information and make it universally accessible and
useful—launched Google Print, a project aimed at making information that currently exists only in books available and searchable on-line.
Google Print has two components. In the first, Google Print for
Publishers, publishers and authors who own the copyright to a book
grant Google permission to digitize the entire text of the book and
tell Google how much of the text will appear when a Google search
produces a hit. Publishers have embraced the program, and all major New
York publishing houses and many independent and university presses are
already participating in this part of the project.
The second part, however, has proven controversial. Last December,
Google announced the Google Print Library Project, an ambitious plan to
scan and digitize the entire collections of five of the world’s great
research libraries: the Harvard and Standford University Libraries, the
University of Michigan Library, the Oxford University’s Bodleian
Library, and the New York Public Library. The project, which is already
underway, involves digitizing not only public domain works but also the
in-copyright books in these libraries. For books under copyright,
Google says it will display no more than a few sentences of text
surrounding the highlighted term called up in the search, and asserts
that this falls under the legal doctrine of “fair use.”
Many publishers expressed alarm over the project and in August, Google
announced a new “opt out” policy for its Library Project, under which
publishers or authors could request that their works, in effect, be
pulled from the digital library. Unsatisfied, the Authors Guild and
three authors filed a suit against Google in September alleging that
scanning the libraries’ collections without prior permission from
copyright holders amounted to massive copyright infringement. That suit
is pending. On October 16, the Association for American Publishers also
filed suit against Google after talks between them on copyright
infringement dissolved.
In early October, Yahoo confirmed that it, too, was embarking on a
scanning project involving the materials in the University of
California Digital Library, the University of Toronto, and others.
Unlike the Google Print Library Project, the Open Content Alliance will
only scan public-domain works and works for which it has received
permission from copyright holders and that its index will be available
through all search engines. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Two Sides
|
The argument against the Project
...But Not at Writers' Expense
Google says writers and publishers should be happy about this: It will increase their exposure and maybe lead to more book sales. That's a devil's bargain.
Bride of Google—Evaluating suitor's character by how he courts
Google seemed to think that it could scan my work and that of thousands of other copyright-holding authors without permission from author or publisher—the entire scan held by Google in some hidden place...
Announcement of the suit against Google
“It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied.”
Publishers Sue Google Over Plans To Digitize Books
“The bottom line is that under its current plan Google is seeking to make millions of dollars by freeloading on the talent and property of authors and publishers." |
|
The argument in favor of the Project
Riches We Must Share...
The digitization of information is a profound gesture that holds open our doors. Limiting access to information is tantamount to limiting the opportunities of our citizens.
Google's response to the Author's Guild suit
The use we make of all the books we scan through the Library Project is fully consistent with both the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law and the principles underlying copyright law itself, which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews.
Tim O'Reilly's op-ed in the New York Times
According to Nielsen Bookscan, which tracks sales from major booksellers, only 2 percent of the 1.2 million unique titles sold in 2004 had sales of more than 5,000 copies. Against this backdrop, the recent Authors Guild suit against the Google Library Project is poignantly wrongheaded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
