Google News, Inside.

But Really, How Evil *Is* Google?

Posted at 8:42am EST on 12/31/2008

Today, an article came across my screen about the Google scanning project and I felt I really should share this. Let’s look at this excerpt from the Open Content Alliance website.

Take for example the digital copy that Google gives to a library in exchange for scanning its copy of a book. Previously, all library partners were given digital copies. According to the proposed settlement, however, only “fully participating libraries” will continue to receive copies from Google. These are libraries that (1) continue to provide in-copyright books for scanning and that (2) enter into a new agreement with the Book Rights Registry releasing them from liability for copyright infringement in relation to the Google scanning project. All other categories of libraries will no longer receive copies in exchange and, to make matters worse, they will have to destroy the digital copies of in-copyright books they already possess or otherwise expose themselves to the implied threat of a lawsuit from authors and publishers over copyright infringement.

In the context of that quote, Google is giving libraries the “all or nothing” option, basically. To me, this really doesn’t feel like Google’s attitude and doesn’t reflect everything they’ve done in the past.

Let’s look a bit further into the article, where they write, “Yet even these “fully participating” libraries are granted only a few permissible uses of their copies (e.g., services for the disabled, replacement copies, five-page access) while other uses that are arguably fair use (interlibrary loan, use in e-reserves and course management systems) are strictly forbidden.”

Libraries are all about books; renting books, sometimes selling books, and all about the general education and entertainment through reading. Sure the Google scanning project will do a lot for the web and is certainly in line with Google’s mission statement. But looking at the clauses and technicalities of their agreements with libraries, it’s really fringing on the “take but dont give back” methodology.

It actually disturbs me to hear that Google would be doing something like this for such a worthy cause, the global accessibility of information.

Daniel Clancy, the engineering manager for Google Book Search, replied with a very lengthy comment to the article I’m writing about.

Check out the comments below in the article for some heavy discussion.