11.03.2005

Google Print

The debate continues.

Opposed, in today's Washington Times.

For, from Google.

What Goodle is doing to reading, by Gregory Crane from Humanities.

What's your take?

1 comment:

Club Sammich said...

What I done posted about it on the Alley:

I've never had anything published, be it music, words, or code, save for what's already on the web. All my stuff is already pretty much public domain. I can't really put myself in the position of an author or publisher. However, as a blogger, I can say I'm pretty delighted when someone finds my stuff via Google or another search engine, and decides they want to read more. I can see Google providing such a service to others who want to get their stuff more widely circulated.

However, what I'm wondering is this: Let's say Google indexes an entire 150 page book, and your search conditions return something in the middle of the book. You have, we'll say, pages 74 - 76. Wouldn't searching for an exact unique phrase near the end of page 76 return pages 76 - 78? Given time, and determination, you could piece together the entire book, electronically, and therefore deny the publisher and author the revenue that would be gained from going out an actually purchasing the book. That's a pretty clear violation of copyright, and is illegal.

However, you could also stop at that point, and go to your local library for a copy of the book as well. That's not a violation of copyright, by any standard that I'm aware of. What Google Print would be doing in this case, is making a library search more efficient by searching the content of books, rather than by author, title, or subject, the way most libraries still do their searches today. I'm all for efficiency.

I think we need to keep the goal of Google Print in perspective. It's not to replace books, but to make them more accessible. This, I can support.