ReviewofBooks,RobertDarnton,theheadofHarvardUniversity'slibrary,arguedthatbecausesuch
booksareacommonresource–thepossessionofusall–onlypublic,not-for-profitbodiesshouldbe
giventhepowertocontrolthem.
ThesecondrelatedcriticismisthatGoogle'sscanningofbooksisactuallyillegal.Thisallegation
hasledtoGooglebecomingmiredin(陷入)alegalbattlewhosescopeandcomplexitymakesthe
JarndyceandJarndycecaseinCharlesDickens'BleakHouselookstraightforward.
Atitscentre,however,isonesimpleissue:thatofcopyright.Theinconvenientfactabout
mostbooks,towhichGooglehasarguablypaidinsufficientattention,isthattheyareprotected
bycopyright.Copyrightlawsdifferfromcountrytocountry,butingeneralprotectionextendsfor
thedurationofanauthor'slifeandforasubstantialperiodafterwards,thusallowingtheauthor'sheirs
tobenefit.(InBritainandAmerica,thispost-deathperiodis70years.)Thismeans,ofcourse,
thatalmostallofthebookspublishedinthe20thcenturyarestillundercopyright–andthelast
centurysawmorebookspublishedthaninallpreviouscenturiescombined.Oftheroughly40
millionbooksinUSlibraries,forexample,anestimated32millionareincopyright.Ofthese,some
27millionareoutofprint.
OutsidetheUS,Googlehasmadesureonlytoscanbooksthatareoutofcopyrightandthusinthe
"publicdomain"(workssuchastheBodleian'sfirsteditionofMiddlemarch,whichanyonecanreadfor
freeonGoogleBooksSearch).
But,withintheUS,thecompanyhasscannedbothin-copyrightandout-of-copyrightworks.Inits
defence,Googlepointsoutthatitdisplaysonlysmallsegmentsofbooksthatarein
copyright–arguingthatsuchdisplaysare"fairuse".Butcriticsallegethatbymaking
electroniccopiesofthesebookswithoutfirstseekingthepermissionofcopyrightholders,Google
hascommittedpiracy.
"Thekeyprincipleofcopyrightlawhasalwaysbeenthatworkscanbecopiedonly
onceauthorshaveexpresslygiventheirpermission,"saysPiersBlofeld,oftheSheilLandliterary
agencyinLondon."Googlehasreversedthis–ithassimplycopiedalltheseworkswithoutbothering
toask."
In2005,theAuthorsGuildofAmerica,togetherwithagroupofUSpublishers,launcheda
classactionsuit(集团诉讼)againstGooglethat,aftermorethantwoyearsofnegotiation,endedwith
anannouncementlastOctoberthatGoogleandtheclaimantshadreachedanout-of-court
settlement.Thefulldetailsarecomplicated-thetextalonerunsto385pages–andtryingtosum
ariseitisnoeasytask."Partoftheproblemisthatitisbasicallyincomprehensible,"saysBlofeld,
oneofthesettlement'smostvocalBritishcritics.
Broadly,thedealprovidesamechanismforGoogletocompensateauthorsand
publisherswhoserightsithasbreached(includinggivingthemashareofanyfuturerevenueit
generatesfromtheirworks).Inexchangeforthis,therightsholdersagreenottosueGoogleinfuture.
ThissettlementhandsGooglethepower-butonlywiththeagreementofindividualrights
holders–toexploititsdatabaseofout-of-printbooks.Itcanincludetheminsubscriptiondealssold
tolibrariesorsellthemindividuallyunderaconsumerlicence.Itisthesecommercialprovisionsthat
areprovingthesettlement'smostcontroversialaspect.