Does Google Have the Right to Digitize the Global Library?

The market for digital books is getting bigger and more competitive. That's why some people are worried that Google's desire to digitize and sell access to the world's libraries is an anti-competitive move from the internet giant. According to the Economist, after settling a class-action suit with a group of authors and publishers last year, Google and it's former legal rivals are now seeking judicial approval for the deal. It's a fascinating case study in the evolving role of copyright in 21st century economics.

Copyright is the direct product of technological evolutions that have historically allowed ever easier access to the copying and distribution of original creative productions, be they written works, artistic pieces, or something else. For most of that history, copyright's have been seen as necessary to safeguard the rights of the creators of original works from those who would unjustly profit from their work without properly compensating the originator.

At the same time, however, part of the original intent of protecting the rights of content producers was to encourage general learning. According to Wikipedia, the legal concept originates with the British Statue of Anne of 1710, which designed explicitly "for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books."

Yet if the origins of the notion of copyright are rooted in protected content creators so that they can contribute to the general good, the advent of the internet and it's major disruption of traditional media publishing have produced a situation in which copyright law is all too often used to uphold the rights of the old power brokers of publishing. Reknown copyright thinker and blogger William Patry ended his blog last year, due to a state of overwhelming depression with the field:

Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners.

So how does Google, which employs Patry, fit into all of this? Under the terms of their settlement of the class action suit, Google would be able to scan millions of out-of-print digital works without previous approval of the copyright holders. It could then sell access to these works, providing it gave authors that could be found a portion of the proceeds.

Opponents are worried about a private company being able to dictate the terms of copyright in a new digital era, a concern that I share. They're also - at least groups like Amazon - worried about Google cutting into their profitability. The upshot is that this could open a huge amount of currently unavailable work for much wider distribution. The case will be heard later this month, and I'll update readers with the results.

(Photo: Ginnerobot on Flickr)