Google Books and the real purpose of copyright

A US court of appeal’s ruling in the long-running Authors Guild vs Google Books case that the latter’s digital book scanning project is perfectly legal and falls within the rules of fair use provides a timely opportunity to discuss copyright and what exactly it is that it protects.

In the image above is a book scanner. Those designed and built by Google are far more efficient and since 2004 are being used to create Google Print, the largest digital book repository in the history of humanity, that later on changed its name to Google Books.

The company’s efforts in pursuing its mission to “organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful” should not be played down: some 129 million books have been published over the course of history, and by 2013, Google had scanned around 30 million, aiming to finish its project by 2023. This is no mean feat, bearing in mind the challenge in simply estimating how many books are out there, based on indexing and duplicating catalogues around the planet, and the fact that many books will be missing; scanning is a laborious task, and one subject to mistakes. Taking on such a task gives an idea of the size of a company that is prone to drive innovation through moonshots: seemingly impossible projects… until Google rolls its sleeves up.

One can only wonder at what has driven the Authors’ Guild to try to prevent this Herculean task by accusing Google of infringing copyright. Google is not scanning the world’s library so as to make its contents directly available to the public. The object of the exercise is to convert titles into a search result, based on the owner’s decision about the amount of information that can be shown. But the Authors’ Guild insists on pursuing this case by using the most arcane arguments imaginable (“what happens if Google is hacked and our copyright is infringed by a third party?” The Authors’ Guild could still take the appeal court’s decision before the Supreme Court, but given the unanimity of its ruling, it is unlikely any further appeal would be accepted.

As the ruling points out regarding copyright:

“The ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding, which copyright seeks to achieve by giving potential creators exclusive control over copying of their works, thus giving them a financial incentive to create informative, intellectually enriching works for public consumption. This objective is clearly reflected in the Constitution’s empowerment of Congress “To promote the Progress of Science (…) by securing for limited Times to Authors (…) the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.” Thus, while authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public, whose access to knowledge copyright seeks to advance by providing rewards for authorship.”

Let’s get this straight: yes, authors benefit financially from copyright, but in the final analysis, the role of copyright is to encourage public access to written works. Some people could do with memorizing this before making certain decisions.

This is an important decision for Google, and hopefully brings to a close a long legal process. Trying to get the company to pay for indexing certain information on the grounds of copyright infringement goes against the nature and reason for the existence of copyright: rigid interpretations of copyright are no good for anyone. Not even the commercial value of the service Google has created prevents its action from being classified as legitimate and reasonable. The rules governing copyright are not written in stone, putting the author above all, and much less the publisher or distributor of a work. The idea that digitalizing something so that it can be indexed is somehow an attack against copyright is a threat to the essence of what a search engine is and should be. Quite simply, it’s a stupid idea, and even more so in the 21st century.

Let’s hope that this ruling silences the copyright Taliban once and for all.

(En español, aquí)