Controversial Google Library Project - Assignment Example

? Literature Review on Controversial Google Library Project Introduction In December 2004, Google launched a program d “Google Print” also known as “Google Library Book Search Project” that aims to digitize books that have been published by authors around the world (Google 2012). The primary purpose of this project is to achieve its organizational mission to make available global knowledge to all the people having Web access. Thus, improving the knowledge efficiency and effectiveness for all and sundry. For instance, the Harvard University Library claims to be “the largest academic library in the world comprising of 15.8 million volumes of published works with or without copyrights in nearly 80 physical locations” (Harvard 2012). Google project with Harvard will digitize these 15.8 million volumes and confine them in one online virtual space. However, the drive to digitize published works was hurdled with the problem of copyrights owned by their authors. Google decided to pursue license agreements with the publishers of the books as approaching individually each author was financially burdensome and laborious activity. Another important aspect were the facts that (1) not all books are published and are available electronically, (2) the publishers and authors of old books are dead, and (3) to find their successors of each author is a time consuming and expensive task. To cut it short, Google signed agreements with large libraries of leading universities around the world to give them the rights to digitize the books. But, Google instead began to scanning each page of the book and uploading them online for viewing and downloading it for free of cost. Soon after the projects launch, the living authors began voicing their concerns and debating the validity of the project. A substantial debate arose against the Google’s drive to attain monopoly over the digital copyright on all literature published around the world. According to the 2012 statistics, the ebook sales contribute to 13% of the total book sales in United States out of which 26% is the sales of e-fiction books. Importantly, this percentage is expected to grow to reach 50% by 2017 (Copyright Agency Limited). Furthermore, 30% of the hard cover print books are sold online. The United States adults increasingly use tablets and ereaders. This rate is expected to reach 60% in next six months when it is already 30% (Ibid 2012). This paper aims to conduct a literature review on the debate that Google’s Library Project is controversial in nature as it is infringing upon the copyrights of authors. The paper will focus on the literature published since 2004 - in chronological order - regarding the issue and analyse the contributions each piece of literature has provided to the mainstream debate. The emerging issues addressed in the paper are the fate of Google’s Library Search Project, threat to copyrights of authors and publishers in America and the uncertainty of unfair clause of Copyrights Law. Furthermore, the paper will develop upon the argument and provide a picture of present situation on the debate with a brief overview of Australian perspective on digitization of libraries. Literature Review The literature on the Google’s Library Search Project dates back to its inception period that triggered a series of research papers that evaluated the authenticity and viability of the whole project in terms of legal and moral rights. For instance, a detailed study of the projects aimed to digitize the libraries was undertaken by Trevis (2005). The researcher proposed a framework through which the education sector can benefit from the digital books without incurring expense, authors will be compensated for their copyright infringement and the technologists will be spared liability from the derivative copyright works. The researcher, Trevis (2005) has argued that the copyrights on books that are out of print and those which were published centuries ago still have copyrights on them. These copyrights are renewable for unlimited time periods which restrict their use and benefit from reaching the public. Furthermore, the perpetual copyrights on literary works like books, audiovisuals, arts and digital content gives unlimited power to the publishers and authors who sue the technologists for legal battles that continue for years after years without reaching any significant conclusion. As a result, there are not many organizations aiming to digitize the literary content with the fear of unlimited lawsuits with unlimited time periods that becomes a financial pain for them. Trevis (2005) has highlighted that Google Print, Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg are some of the library digitization projects that are aiming to digitize the libraries for mass literature access that is within the fair use clause. In 2006, the Association of American Authors and Publishers Guild had filed a joint lawsuit against Google against its library digitization drive. Google had approached the Association for a settlement of millions of dollars in 2008. Initially, the Court had accepted the settlement. However, in November 2008, the Court had rejected the settlement on the extreme pressure from the opposition that if the settlement is reached the purpose of suing Google shall not suffice. The opponents argued that Google aims to monopolize the literary copyrights through book searching service, orphan’s works treatment online, privacy of online searchers, copyrights of foreign authors and court filings. Based on these arguments, the Court has rejected the settlement and thus continuing to bound the Google’s drive to digitize libraries as the lawsuit is still pending for decision. In this wake, another researcher named Manuel (2009) undertook the study to analyze and evaluate the Google Print Project from the copyright law point of view to decide whether the argument that it is infringing the fair use and reproduction clauses under copyright law as true or false. Manuel (2009) has postulated that Google’s project allows only snippets of the book instead of allowing the entire book for downloading purposes. The snippets are technologically sealed within a website page and cannot be downloaded or printed. Instead, these snippets are visible through Amazon.com or other online selling websites and encourage buyers to purchase it from online. Manuel (2009) has highlighted that the authors have filed the suit against Google on the following grounds, namely: (1) copyright infringement of their works, and (2) reproducing their works for digital viewing without their prior permission thus infringing their exclusive rights to reproduction. As a result, Google initially provided the authors and publishers the option to “opt out” from its database if notified. However, this option was unsatisfactory and therefore, they sued Google to put a stop at it from digitizing their works and making them available for public viewing as well as to retrieve monetary damages from the loss that they have incurred since the launch of the project in December 2004. The authors argued that the snippets view does not earn them royalties as Google does not pay them the royalties for each view of their book. On the other hand, Google is of the view that its project is within the ambit of fair use clause of United States Copyright Law that allows the reproduction of works for purpose of research, news reporting, criticism and teaching (17 USC § 107). However, Manuel (2009) argued that the 17 USC § 107 further establishes the test for determining whether any act of reproduction is a fair use or not. It says that if the purpose of reproduction is commercial then it is not a fair use. Only reproduction for educational purposes is fair use of the copyrighted work. Furthermore, the digital libraries projects face countless legal barriers like fair use doctrine uncertainty, copyright terms that are for infinite times renewable, indefinite licensing structure and online contracting trend that jeopardize the digital libraries, postulated Knutson (2009). The researcher has argued that the Google Project is aiming to digitize the large number of printed books in order to safeguard the fragile and potentially disappearing content on paper (Knutson, 2009). Thus, ensuring protection to it for an unlimited period of time. However, due to the uncertain and indeterminate legal doctrines, these projects face uncertain future. Another author postulated that the Google is recently in the event of signing a Book Settlement Agreement with all the authors which is against the federal antitrust law of United States (Fraser, 2010). Accordingly, the researcher highlighted that Google aims to achieve an exclusive license from the rights holders for all the rights including the rights of orphan’s works regardless of the fact that they do not own the rights over orphan’s works. Likewise, the US Federal Antitrust law does not allow simultaneous grant of exclusive rights by all the authors and publishers through single agreement as it violates the trust and credibility of public. Guo, Liu and Yu (2010) had undertaken a study to find a solution to the Google Book Project and the issue of copyright infringement of authors and publishers. They argued that the digitization of libraries is effective however, it infringes upon the exclusive copyrights of their authors and publishers. These copyrights safeguards the royalties of the authors and reproduction of works to ensure financial revenue streams for publishers. However, the digitization is jeopardizing the very foundation of copyright protection. Guo, Liu and Yu (2010) had argued that if the decision is decided in the favor of Google, the essence of copyright law will be nullified. Therefore, the rights of the authors and publishers needs to be sanctified and saved for the future validity of the Copyright Law. Luck (2011) had discussed the cyber-socialists viewpoint against the Google’s Library project. He had highlighted that they view the project as an intentional drive to monopolize the literary copyrights thus restricting the access, viewing, downloading and printing of the copyright works around the world. The cyber-socialists argue that the Google’s project to digitization will give them the complete power and virtual ownership to control the entire literary chest that exists in this world (Luck, 2011). Importantly, the authors and publishers will become virtually bankrupt as they will have no ownership and no revenue streams as no buyer will buy from them. Due to the increasing trend of consumers becoming digital consumers and reading e-books, the trend of buying in print will subside in the next decade or two. Thus, virtually the publishers will be out of business if Google will control the global database of books, audiovisuals, arts and digital content. Gillam (2012) had provided that the Google has approached the Court with the argument that there is no collective ownership of literary works that makes an Association’s lawsuit maintainable in law. Gillam (2012) had opined that the Google, in other words, requires that individual authors should file a suit against the giant. The opposition however, argued that the Google does not expect that any individual author will have the financial strength and ability to bring a lawsuit against it, hence the argument. The Court agrees to the oppositions view however, the suit is still pending for decision. Conclusion From the literature review, it is found that Google’s Library Book Search Project is an important step to safeguard the disappearing and fragile printed literary works. However, it is in violation to the copyright law, fair use doctrine and US Federal antitrust law. Thus, it should take prior authorization from the authors and publishers for reproduction and use of the literary works, acknowledge and provide strong copyright protection to those authors who have authorized and also pay royalties to them for each view of their work. The Google’s Library Book Search Project’s impact is not restricted to the American authors and publishers alone. Being, an online facility that is aiming to take control of the copyrights of authors and publishers also threatens the Australian authors and publishers who have published and distributed their literary assets to America and other countries whose Universities have signed contracts with Google Inc. In this regard, the future researchers should evaluate the exact impact of the decision of the Court in favor of Google Inc. on the validity of unfair doctrine, copyrights of Australian authors and publishers and on the overall Australian publishing industry in general. References 17 USC § 107 - LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USE. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Copyright Agency Limited 2012, “An Australian Perspective on Digital Book World 2012”, CAL. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: http://digitalpublishingaustralia.org.au/2012/04/10/an-australian-perspective-on-digital-book-world-2012/ Fraser, EM 2010, "Antitrust and the Google Books Settlement: The problem of simultaneity", Stanford Technology Law Review, Vol.4. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Gillam, C 2012, "What’s happening with the Google Book Settlement?", Copyright Agency Limited. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Google 2012, "What's the issue?" [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Guo, Y, Liu, X & Yu, Z 2010, "Google Library: Some Copyright Infringement Concerns in China", E-Business and E-Government (ICEE) International Conference, Pp: 2053-2056. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Harvard 2010, “Harvard Google Project”, Harvard University Library. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Knutson, AN 2009, "Proceed with caution: How digital archives have been left in the dark", Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 24, pg. 437-473. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Luck, G 2011, "Google versus the Cyber-socialists: The struggle to Monopolise Literary Copyright. Quadrant, Vo. 55, No. 6, Pgs. 5-10. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Manuel, KM 2009, "The Google Library Project: Is Digitization for Purposes of Online Indexing Fair Use Under Copyright Law?", Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Travis, HB 2005, "Building universal digital libraries: An agenda for copyright reform", Bepress Legal Series, No. 755. [Accessed 8 May 2012] Available at: Read More