"The
publishing industry is united behind this lawsuit against Google
and united in the fight to defend their rights," said AAP President
and former Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder. "While
authors and publishers know how useful Google's search engine can
be and think the Print Library could be an excellent resource, 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."
Google denies any infringement: you can find books with Google
Print but you can't just print them out – i.e. you still have to
buy them. It disagrees with the AAP's interpretation of copyright
law and on the spirit of Google's project.
Announced late last year, the Google Print Library Project
involves the scanning and digitisation of millions of published
books from the collections of three major academic libraries –
Stanford University, Harvard University and the University of
Michigan – from which Google plans to create an online, searchable
database. Oxford University and the New York Public Library are
also participating in the Library Project, but are only making
available works in the public domain.
Writers filed a similar suit to the AAP's last month: the
Authors Guild, which represents 8,000 authors, argued that while
Google has the agreement of libraries to scan the books on their
shelves, the authors of those books had not been consulted.
The AAP – which represents 300 publishers – says it went to
court after negotiations broke down with Google.
The lawsuit, which seeks a declaration by the court that Google
commits infringement when it scans entire books covered by
copyright and a court order preventing it from doing so without
permission of the copyright owner, was filed on behalf of five
major publisher members of the AAP: The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Pearson Education, Penguin Group (USA), Simon & Schuster and
John Wiley & Sons.
Google's counter-argument is that its service will actually
enhance the value of copyright in the books it scans. CEO Eric
Schmidt wrote a commentary that appeared in yesterday's edition of
The Wall Street Journal.
He explained that for many books, the search results will, like
an ordinary card catalogue, "contain basic bibliographic
information and, at most, a few lines of text where your search
terms appear."
Schmidt continued:
"We show more than this basic information
only if a book is in the public domain, or if the copyright owner
has explicitly allowed it by adding this title to the Publisher
Program (most major US and UK publishers have signed up). We refer
people who discover books through Google Print to online retailers,
but we don't make a penny on referrals. We also don't place ads on
Google Print pages for books from our Library Project, and we do so
for books in our Publishing Program only with the permission of
publishers, who receive the majority of the resulting revenue. Any
copyright holder can easily exclude their titles from Google Print
– no lawsuit is required."
The AAP says it had asked Google to utilise the ISBN numbering
system to identify works under copyright and secure permission from
publishers and authors to scan these works. But Google rejected
this proposal, apparently preferring an opt-out approach.
"Copyright-holders are free to send us a list of titles that they
don't want included in the Google Print index," wrote Schmidt.
Mrs. Schroeder said: “If Google can scan every book in the
English language, surely they can utilise ISBNs. By rejecting the
reasonable ISBN solution, Google left our members no choice but to
file this suit.”
She added that, while “Google Print Library could help many
authors get more exposure and maybe even sell more books, authors
and publishers should not be asked to waive their long-held rights
so that Google can profit from this venture.”
But clearly Schmidt doesn't see it that way. He argues that
"some of Google Print's primary beneficiaries will be publishers
and authors themselves."
