Derek Slater says "Game On" for Google Print
Again, Siva's real fear appears not to be the meltdown caused by Google Print the case, but what he speculates will come after. When I look at the Google Print case, I say "game on" - I see a chance for a legitimate defendant to take a real shot at making some good law. There's broad and even unexpected support for what Google's doing. A strategy of just patiently waiting on the sidelines, to try to hold Congress off, seems potentially very damaging. I don't know how it's productive to copyfight that way - should Grokster not have been fought, because if we had clearly won, the INDUCE Act would have passed?
Yes, there are times to be bold and subjects to champion. I just don't think this is worth betting the Internet (or the copyright system) on.
My fears about Google losing (which are significant, and based on real copyright politics instead of wishful thinking) are only the premise of my criticism of Google Print/Library.
Look, when in comes to copyright, the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit do not make good law. Learned Hand has been dead a long time. The chances of good law coming out of the home turf of Time Warner, Viacom, and the News Corporation at the behest of some punk-kid company from California are as slim as those of good wine coming from New York. I sure wish New York produced good wines. And I wish SDNY and the Second Circuit understood digital copyright better (see Universal v. Reimerdes). But we shall be waiting a long time for both these things.
And besides, my real issues are with the libraries here. Google can and should do what's best for its shareholders. The rest of us should worry about what's best for the culture, democracy, and the Internet. We can't count on any company to do that for us. We should be able to count on libraries to do it. They work for us. Google doesn't.
Basically, I think we as readers and researchers (and authors) should want such a full-text-search service. But Google is the wrong party to depend on for this in part because I think it will lose in court, undermine Kelly v. ArribaSoft, threaten future similar library projects, and crowd out other good initiatives in both the private and public sectors. The damage could be huge, both in court and Congress.
Please remember that this company is unaccountable to everyone but its shareholders. It depends on things like DRM, trade secrets, proprietary code, vague privacy pledges, and non-disclosure agreements to make this project happen. How can I cheer this on?
Look, the more fair-use friendly Google Print Library is, the more user un-friendly it is. The better the service is for Google and the publishers, the worse it is for us.
The idealization of both Google the company and the library project are really astounding to me. I just don't get it.