Trooooooogle [IP Bytes #1]
Trooooooogle - subjective truth for the dissemination of (almost) all knowledge
Image from: http://www.china-guide.de/china/bildungssystem/b.grundschule.html
Google has been hot in the news over the past year. The latest headlines involve two separate issues (1) Googles' expansion into China, and (2) Googles' library project to make the content of every single published book searchable online. This first post of IP Bytes will explore them both.
Google's recent expansion into China has caused quite a stir among the information community. The fact (yes, actual fact) that the knowledge giant is willing to yield to censorship pressures of the Chinese government seemed at first glance counterintuitive to their mission of arming the world with knowledge and sticking to their own mission statement "don't be evil." The news last week sent shockwaves through the blogging community that resulted in some bloggers, including the reputable Blogger News Network, discontinuing their Google ad sense accounts, which pay them fees-per-click.
Despite angered and incensed technorighteous bloggers and critics it is important to keep in mind that there are some possible benefits of Google taking the steps to create an online presence in China, even if that presence is limited. Previous to this move the dissemination of information in China was even less than it would be without Google there. What the information community needs to be mindful of is that the flow of information increases with time rather than decrease. While initially the move in China seems to militate against the spirit of the Googlegalactic conquest, in the long run it could result in a more informed population that comes to not only appreciate the vastness of knowledge, but actually demands it.
The second issue surrounding Google these days involves their library project of ambitiously scanning all library books (both copyrighted and not) online for searchability. Google library would allow the entire text of a book to be searchable for the terms entered into the search bar by users. They would be provided with a list of hits that would allow them to read about two sentences around the word. The full text of the book would only be available if the publisher allowed it to be. In other cases, Google users would be directed to either the publisher's website or other resources telling them where they could get the book.
Objectionable publisher's were quick to respond to this move by Google. They echo much of the dissent that arose over "Google Print" which the company has been using for years as a way of linking users to material. The only difference between Google Print and Google Library is that in Google Print the publishers were opting to participate to their benefit, showing as much or as little of the book as they pleased. The disputes that usually arose concerning Google Print involved authors and publishers who had issues surrounding the amount of work permitted online that may have contravened their publishing agreement. Unlike Google Print, the posting of content through Google Library was done without the permission of the publishers and has stirred up much tension in the publishing world over what is permissible. Whether this comes down to a decision of whether the snippets of work shown through Google are permissible as a transformative use for indexing rather than publishing purposes remains to be seen.
I think that as technology moves forward publishers and copyright holders may need to change what they view as the scope of protectible work and take advantage of the opportunities that a search engine like Google can provide. Of course one can imagine the converse (publishers' worst nightmare) where people find snippets that they want and then go take the last few words and then use a bypass software unlock the entire work two lines at a time. This may seem unlikely at the inception of Google's library project, but the danger in allowing technology to flourish is that our perceptions of what is protectible also must expand.
Objectionable publisher's were quick to respond to this move by Google. They echo much of the dissent that arose over "Google Print" which the company has been using for years as a way of linking users to material. The only difference between Google Print and Google Library is that in Google Print the publishers were opting to participate to their benefit, showing as much or as little of the book as they pleased. The disputes that usually arose concerning Google Print involved authors and publishers who had issues surrounding the amount of work permitted online that may have contravened their publishing agreement. Unlike Google Print, the posting of content through Google Library was done without the permission of the publishers and has stirred up much tension in the publishing world over what is permissible. Whether this comes down to a decision of whether the snippets of work shown through Google are permissible as a transformative use for indexing rather than publishing purposes remains to be seen.
I think that as technology moves forward publishers and copyright holders may need to change what they view as the scope of protectible work and take advantage of the opportunities that a search engine like Google can provide. Of course one can imagine the converse (publishers' worst nightmare) where people find snippets that they want and then go take the last few words and then use a bypass software unlock the entire work two lines at a time. This may seem unlikely at the inception of Google's library project, but the danger in allowing technology to flourish is that our perceptions of what is protectible also must expand.
posted by Mike | 7:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home