Globe & Mail’s editorial on Google

Author: Sarah Sheard

Authors are accustomed to deadlines

but the one imposed on Canadian writers by Google Inc. was disconcerting, to say the least.

Since 2004, the search engine giant has quietly gone about scanning millions of books found in American libraries, including thousands by Canadian copyright holders who were never consulted, and did not grant their permission. Having built up this digital treasure trove with a variety of commercial aims in mind, Google agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for massive copyright infringement brought by the Authors Guild of America, offering to pay $125-million (U.S.) in “thank-you” money, for wont of a better phrase, to publishers and their authors.

A deadline of Sept. 4 was established for all those caught up in the scanning project, however involuntarily. Authors could either “opt in” to the terms of the settlement, or “opt out” – thus retaining the right to sue Google down the road.

Because American copyright law doesn’t clearly distinguish between international works published by a U.S. company and works that pop up in an American library, virtually all of world literature and scholarship has become fair game for these settlement terms. Canadian authors have been left scrambling to protect their intellectual ownership without any sense of the long-term implications.

It isn’t even clear what can be gained from “opting out,” since Google has no legal obligation to remove the books it has already scanned. The company is currently doing so merely as a matter of “good faith.” (American conservative Christopher Buckley wants none of that. “Whenever I hear capitalism proclaiming noble motives, something makes me check my wallet,” he observed recently of the settlement.) “This is a pivotal moment in the history of access to recorded information,” Susan Benton, president of the Urban Libraries Council, wrote in an Aug. 19 letter to U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, who has been tasked with reviewing the deal.

A brief filed to the court by Amazon.com is typical of the slow-dawning sense of alarm being expressed: the settlement terms, Amazon charged, “are the stuff of anti-trust nightmares.”

For one thing, Amazon and all other book sellers and libraries unassociated with Google will be precluded from digitizing out-of-print and orphaned works in the public domain. Moreover, works will be deemed to be orphaned if their authors don’t sign Google’s Books Registry. As the Writer’s Union of Canada points out in its brief to the court: “Authors should not lose control over their works because they fail to sign up in a registry in another country.”

It is unacceptable to be bossed around and held to deadlines in this fashion by foreign interests. Canadians who publish books, including everyone from the leader of the federal Liberals to business people, historians, doctors and poets, deserve more than a meagre opt in/opt out say in the future of their collective intellectual property.

Globe and Mail, Editorial Page, Monday, Sept. 07, 2009


One Response to “Globe & Mail’s editorial on Google”

  • Douglas Fevens Says:

    Hi Sarah,

    I’m reposting the comment I left at the Globe and Mail website for this editorial.

    9/8/2009 7:07:56 PM
    The Google Book Settlement rewards Google for breaking copyright law. Google insists that ‘fair use” doctrine gives them the right to digitize in copyright works. I would point out that the United States Copyright Office-Section 108 Study Group;
    ([ http://www.section108.gov/ ] “a select committee of copyright experts charged with updating for the digital world the [USA] Copyright Act’s balance between the rights of creators and copyright owners and the needs of libraries and archives.” as the group is described on their web site) 2008 report states:
    “Machines read and render digital content by copying it. As a result, copies are routinely made in connection with any use of a digital file. While these copies may be temporary or incidental to the use, they are considered “reproductions” under the copyright law for which authorization is required absent an applicable exception.” (Introduction, Page 6, Second “bulleted” item)
    I think Google is taking a page out George W Bush’s play book that if you proclaim an illegal activity (i.e. waterboarding) legal long enough people will believe you are sincere in your beliefs, regardless of the legality.
    The University of Wisconsin in partnership with Google, without my authorization, digitized my “Fevens, a family history in 2008. I do not believe the partnership that exists between the University and Google is an “applicable exception” because they are a de facto commercial enterprise.

    Douglas Fevens
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    The University of Wisconsin, Google & Me
    http://www.facebook.com/douglas.fevens

Leave a Reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree