Blog Insights: Is Google Book Search fair to authors?

What bloggers are saying about the latest in information technology



The Google Book Search has been controversial from the start, and there are a lot of misconceptions out there on both sides of the fence. A common misconception is that you can download any book in print, in full. I admit, when I first heard about it, I was afraid that Google was simply digitizing entire libraries and putting the results online -- a practice that would be disastrous for the publishing industry, blatantly unfair to authors, and outright illegal. Fortunately, they are not doing that.



Last week, Microsoft, which has an online book search of its own in beta, struck out against Google when Microsoft lawyer Thomas Rubin complained in an editorial in the Financial Times. Nicholas Carr doesn't take sides, but aptly refers to it as a "mud fight," and predicts that Microsoft will come out ahead. The discussion that follows Nick's and every other blog however, brings out some of the same tired old arguments: Microsoft is a corporate bully, rich copyright holders are undeserving, information should be free, bla bla bla. None of those arguments have anything to do with the real issue. In fact, much of the commentary out there is just an excuse for engaging in the popular sport of Microsoft-bashing. Fast Company says Microsoft is just posturing, and Global Nerdy even refers to the "Microsoft shyster" instead of "Microsoft lawyer". Now I don't have much love for lawyers either, but the argument really isn't about Microsoft. It's about which model for book search is more legitimate. Microsoft's Live Book Search works differently from Google Book Search. The Microsoft offering only displays books that are past their copyright, or have been specifically authorized by the copyright holder.

Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine