An important voice has formulated an opinion about the Authors Guild and AAP lawsuits vs. Google's library-scanning program, which is set to resume on November 1. That's copyright revisionist Lawrence Lessig, chariman of the Creative Commons. In a Wired editorial, Lessig comes down saying the publishing groups are both right and wrong: right in their literal interpretation of copyright procedure, and wrong to fight this fight. That viewpoint is becoming concensus thinking; I certainly share it. Lessig focuses on a point I've been hammering on—namely, that if Google Print For Libraries is illegal, google's search engine (and Yahoo!'s, and MSN's) is illegal. And since it wouldn't be in the public good to disassemble Google, a more modern view of copyright in this case is needed. Copyright was originally intended to protect creators, Lessig argues, and nothing about Google Print removes incentive from authoring books. [via Pho; no link yet available]
Lessig's View on Google Print for Libraries
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Google is spinning this to make it look like they will have to pack it in if they lose. If only that were true!
I don't see the problem here. Google loses, the robots.txt protocol changes from opt-out to opt-in, and thousands of webmasters are delighted because Google can no longer suck blood from the web. Their market cap drops from $97 billion to a more reasonable $20 billion.
Everyone lives happily ever after.
Posted at 6:06AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Daniel Brandt
1. Google is spinning this to make it look like they will have to pack it in if they lose. If only that were true!
I don't see the problem here. Google loses, the robots.txt protocol changes from opt-out to opt-in, and thousands of webmasters are delighted because Google can no longer suck blood from the web. Their market cap drops from $97 billion to a more reasonable $20 billion.
Everyone lives happily ever after.
Posted at 6:06AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Daniel Brandt