Google books

Tome raider

A fuss over Google's effort to build a huge digital library

PAUL COURANT, the dean of libraries at the University of Michigan, jokes that he also runs “an orphanage”. Among the books on his shelves are such seminal texts as “Blunder Out of China” and “The Appalachian Frontier: America’s First Surge Westward”, which are protected by copyrights belonging to people who cannot be found. Known as “orphan” books, such titles are one element of a controversial plan by Google, the world’s biggest internet company, to create a vast online library.

Several years ago Google began working with research libraries in America to create digital copies of their collections, parts of which it made available online. Not long after, a group of authors and publishers sued the company for breach of copyright. Now Google and its former antagonists are seeking judicial approval for a deal they reached last year to settle the class-action suit. Among other things, this would allow the company to scan millions of out-of-print books, including orphan works, without seeking permission from individual copyright holders. Google could then sell individual works or access to its entire library, provided it paid a share of the proceeds to owners of the copyrights, if they can be found. (It has already set aside $125m to that end.) Publishers and authors had until September 4th to withdraw from the agreement; those remaining in it can ask Google to remove their titles from its library at any time. Next month a federal court is due to hold a hearing on the agreement, which will help shape the future of the digital publishing.

Opposition to the deal is brewing all around the world. On August 31st the German government filed a submission to the American court arguing that the agreement, which encompasses books by German authors published in the United States, would violate Germany’s copyright law. French publishers also claim the agreement will contravene laws in their homeland. They note that there are no plans for European representatives on the book-rights registry that would be set up under the deal to collect and distribute payments due to copyright owners. This has heightened suspicions that foreigners will be fleeced.

In Japan two noted writers have filed a complaint with local authorities about Google’s actions. Many American firms oppose the deal, including Microsoft and Yahoo!, two of Google’s big competitors, as well as Amazon, a big retailer of books in both paper and electronic form. Amazon argues that Congress, rather than Google and its allies, should decide how copyrights should be handled in the digital age.

Together with the Internet Archive, a non-profit organisation which runs a rival project to digitise libraries’ contents, these firms have formed a group called the Open Book Alliance to campaign against the agreement. A posting on the Alliance’s website claims that the agreement would create a monopoly in digital books that would inevitably lead to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. Such complaints have attracted the attention of America’s Department of Justice, which is examining the agreement to see whether it is anti-competitive. It is due to send its findings to the court by September 18th.

In response, Google executives point out that the deal cannot be opened up to other firms because of the way class-action litigation works in America. However, it is a non-exclusive arrangement, so other companies are free, in theory, to seek a similar deal to Google’s. But in practice few are likely to enter this legal maze, and go to the expense of scanning millions of books, without any certainty of making money.

In spite of this, Google claims that rather than suppressing competition in the emerging market for electronic books, the agreement would increase it by offering a web-based alternative to expensive proprietary systems such as Amazon’s Kindle. Having bought a book from Google, customers would be able to read it on any device with internet access. Moreover, by clarifying the copyright status of millions of digital books, the deal would also make it easier for firms other than Google to strike deals to use them.

This may explain why the agreement is garnering support from some unexpected quarters. In a recent letter to the court, lawyers for Japan’s Sony, which also makes readers for electronic books, argued that if the agreement is approved it would have “numerous and significant pro-competitive effects”. Viviane Reding, the European Union’s commissioner for telecoms and media, has publicly hailed new business models such as Google’s, which she thinks will complement the EU’s Europeana initiative to digitise Europe’s cultural heritage. By promising to bring many more books like “The Appalachian Frontier” to an exciting new digital frontier, Google stands a fighting chance of winning its case.