[Ecommerce] Business Week online: A Google Project Pains Publishers

[Manon Ress]

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2005/tc20050523_9472_tc02=
4.htm

A Google Project Pains Publishers
The major presses are raising thorny legal issues with the search
giant's initiative to digitize the books of the world's great libraries


Google (GOOG ) can search an astonishing 8 billion Web pages. And yet,
that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the knowledge that's stored
in the world's libraries but not available online.
Advertisement


So when Google announced last year that it planned to scan millions of
the world's books and make them searchable online, many were thrilled.
Many -- but not everyone, it turns out. In a May 20 letter, the
Association of American University Presses (AAUP) blasts Google's
so-called Print for Libraries program for posing a risk of "systematic
infringement of copyright on a massive scale."

WHAT IS FAIR USE?  The letter from Peter Givler, AAUP's executive
director, was obtained by BusinessWeek Online (click here to see the
letter). The missive says the Google initiative has the potential for
serious financial damage to the group's membership. "What I really hope
the letter will do is open up a serious and substantive discussion with
Google=85to get them to respond to the substantive legal issues," Givler
told BusinessWeek Online.

The AAUP isn't the only organization to put Google on notice.
BusinessWeek Online has also learned that in recent months, major
publishers John Wiley & Sons and Random House have also sent letters to
Google expressing similar concerns about the libraries program. "We
don't see how a for-profit company compiling this would be considered
fair use," says Allan Adler, head of legal and government affairs for
the Association of American Publishers, the principal trade organization
of the book publishing industry.

Random House declined to comment. Wiley released a statement saying it
is "exploring issues and opportunities with Google, including the
potential impact of this program on our authors, our customers, and our
business." Simon & Schuster spokesperson Adam Rothberg declined to
comment but added, "There are concerns out there."

RUSHING TO SIGN UP.  Google says it's doing its best to look out for the
interests of its partners, while building the best service possible.
"Google was founded on this very respectful relationship with content
owners," says Adam Smith, senior business product manager at Google.

The online search giant declined to comment directly on any of the
complaints made in the letters (the latest one from the AAUP is expected
to arrive on May 23). A Google spokesman would only say, "They're valued
partners of ours, and we don't offer comments on partner discussions."
Speaking more broadly, Smith says, "In the case of the Google Print
program, whether it [be a] library or a publishing partner, we take a
very conservative approach."

Back in October, Google Print seemed like a dream deal for publishers.
Indeed, some couldn't sign up fast enough. The search outfit invited
publishing houses worldwide to send books for digitization online.

LIBRARY SHOCK.  Here's what Google offered: When a book came up on
Google searches, users would only be allowed to see a few pages of the
book, but links would be provided to the Web sites where the books were
being sold. The link would go to the publisher's site if it were
handling direct sales, according to the original plan.

In addition, Google said it would place sponsored links next to the
text, splitting the ad revenue with the publisher. What would Google
charge for of this new marketing opportunity and revenue stream?
Absolutely nothing. Major publishers, including Random House, John Wiley
& Sons, Simon & Schuster, and others signed up right away to try pilot
programs of the service, each sending a few thousand books.

But in December, Google dropped the equivalent of a heavy encyclopedia
on the publishers. With no advance notification, the search provider
unveiled its Print for Libraries program, aimed at digitizing
public-domain books from the likes of the New York Public Library,
Oxford University's Bodleian Library, and the libraries of Harvard and
Michigan universities. Google said it would make available full versions
of public-domain books online, while making only "snippets" of
copyrighted text available.

NOT ALL ARE CONCERNED.  But in addition to storing the digitized books
on its own servers, Google said it would provide digital copies to the
libraries. Publishers now worry Google might someday distribute digital
copies of copyrighted books without their or the author's approval. The
publishers argue that libraries have no legal right to digitize
copyrighted material by handing it over to Google.

The mass digitization of library books also raises concerns about
piracy. "Nobody has convinced us that this can't be hacked," says Kay
Murray, general counsel for the Authors' Guild. "They have to make sure
they protect [copyrighted books]."

To be sure, not all publishers are concerned about Google's plan. "I
think the big picture with Google is that [the marketing abilities] are
a great benefit to publishers and authors," says David Langevin,
director of electronic markets for Houghton-Mifflin. Langevin notes that
in instances where authors requested to be taken off of the popular
search engine, Google complied very quickly.

"HUGE EXPOSURE."  Some legal experts, such as Stanford law professor
Lawrence Lessig and Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain, argue that the
real rub in this dispute lies in the copyright laws' murkiness. "The
fair-use section of [copyright] statute is fairly flexible" says
Zittrain. "Google's plan doesn't disrupt the market for purchasing the
book, and in that sense it should heavily favor them."

Yet, legal experts also agree that Google's plan could open the door for
liability for potential copyright infringement, in the event of future
litigation, if the issues being raised by the publishers now aren't
settled to everyone's satisfaction. "For registered works it can be up
to $150,000 per infringement," says Lessig. "I don't think any judge
would do that because Google seems to be operating in good faith...but
there's a huge exposure."

In the end, this disagreement comes down to whether the interested
parties can come to a peaceful solution -- or fight it out in the courts.


Helm is a BusinessWeek Online reporter

--
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax: +1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent, London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607