Topic: Google Print - Another Rant

ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS LAWYER magazine published by the American Bar Association (ABA Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries) ran an article I wrote (with Charles McCarthy) about the Google Print initiative and the backlash that followed. Summer 2005, Volume 23, Number 2, The backlash came specifically against Google's libraries program which distorts the meaning of "fair use" under the Copyright Act and stood (it's now on hold pending the outcome of a lawsuit) to scan, wholesale, hundreds of thousands of books for Google's commercial purposes. Mainly, all of the news focuses on the Libraries campaign, which admittedly is more clear cut. I have not noticed as much news about the original Publishers' campaign involving the cooperation of publishers.

I admit that it feels inevitable that books will be reprinted and read electronically (and in the case of Google Print, catalogued and searched electronically) with more frequency by the consumer. I also agree this makes book publishing more competitive in some ways. However, I wonder about the failure of large corporations to protect (from retention and security of the files to encryption of the electronic publishing process) the work, and to be actively addressing the substantial questions.

I would be interested in following the first law suit that states a claim in tort against the publisher (rather than Google) for diminishing the value of the author's work by failing to protect it, by giving away an infinite number of copies for free to black market publishers by failing to protect it, and by recklessly failing to consult with the author before forwarding the files. Of course if the first series of lawsuits puts Google out of business (Yes, if that happens, I can revert to "Dogpile"!), the second question may not see the light of day. On the other hand, Amazon has a similar program, and hopefully they will learn from Google's' lessons.

The executives (who make the lives off of the backs of the overworked, underpaid editors and authors) should make smarter decisions that protect the IP including the value of the original work. Are these simply lords of literature ruling over the surf-like intelligentsia? Or should we regard publishers as fiduciaries of the common culture? The manner in which business chances law-suits in a risk-benefit analysis does not take in mind the irreparable injury that occurs when information is released to third parties who do not have a responsibility to the work. It's a true pandora's box, a nearly literal parallel. It should be the responsibility of the publisher to find partners who can solve some of these tough problems too. Am I It seems unlikely that writers, and writers' representatives will lay down on this issue.