Good Honest Dollar $$

It’s truly a great pity sometimes to see wonderfully innovative projects become unnecessarily bogged down in legal challenges.

This includes Google’s book scanning project, and given the significance of the benefits of the project from the viewpoint of the general public, I feel that it would be a great pity of the project was subject to any further substantial form of hindrance or delay.

 
Misguided objections
Perhaps I have not properly understood the nature of the objections to the project, under which Google has scanned a wide range of books from around the world and compiled them into a huge database, allowing users to easily discover books which are relevant to their topic of interest. But I don’t see how any of them stand up to any form of scrutiny.

These objections seem to boil down to three main categories:

 
• Breach of copyright.

Not being a legal expert, I am not in any kind of position to make informed comment with regard to the question of whether or not the project indeed breaches any form of legal right to which copyright holders may be entitled in America or any other country.

But from an ethical viewpoint, I find it hard to see how copyright holders have much of a legitimate complaint. Google has already gone to more than sufficient respect for their rights. Where the publications in question are subject to copyright, Google displays only miniscule snippets of the text which surround the relevant search term (although copyright holders do have the option of granting explicit permission to display either the entire publication or large sections of it). Even then, copyright holders who feel genuinely aggrieved even at this can have their publication removed altogether upon request.

This would seem more than fair, and I really don’t know what else Google could reasonably do in this regard.

 
• Creation of an uncompetitive monopoly.

True, Google enjoys a monopoly position in this area, which will be further entrenched if a settlement with the Authors Guild and American Association of Publishers is allowed to proceed.

But this is only because they have done something which competitors have so far been unwilling or unable to do.

Monopolies are objectionable where they are created and maintained by unduly restrictive conduct on the part of the monopolist, not in situations like this where they simply represent a natural outcome of one company being well ahead of its competitors.

As far as I understand it, there is absolutely nothing at all preventing any firm or organization who wants to compete with Google in this area from simply doing what Google has done.

Google should not have to wait for its competitors to catch up before it starts reaping the rewards from its innovation.

 
• Threat to cultural diversity.

According to Wikipedia, the vast majority of books proposed to be scanned are in English. If this is the case, then it is indeed regrettable.  Not only could this result in a ‘disproportionate representation of languages in the digital world’, as Wikipedia puts it, an issue about which many Europeans are understandably sensitive, given the extent to which language represents a significant feature of their culture and identity, it could also have unintended consequences with regard to the shaping of the field of scholarship, a field in which German, Russian and French represent popular languages alongside English.

Fair argument. But on the flip side, the project allows internet users to discover a whole range of publications from different countries around the world which are relevant to their topic of interest. I would have thought will help to facilitate expansion of cultural awareness and diversity in a manner which is more than sufficient to offset any form of threat posed by any form of bias toward books written in English.

 
A truly wonderful service
Against these objections stands the very significant public benefit of the project.

Aside from the commercial benefits accruing to Google itself as well as authors and publishers, users of the service, such as casual readers, students or vocational or academic researchers derive a significant benefit through the ability to discover and locate references in their relevant area of interest or study more easily. And at a broader level, society in general should derive a significant benefit through the more efficient sharing of knowledge and expertise as well as exposure to a more diverse range of perspectives with regard to a whole range of subjects.

The project is a marvellous innovation which has already been bogged down in legal disputes for too long. It would be a great shame to see it bogged down much longer.