Luddites attack!

I suppose I shouldn't expect any more from the Washington Times. But still - there is just so much wrong with what Pat Schroeder and Bob Barr - two opponents of Google Print - are saying. Lets take a look:

 Internet behemoth Google, [ <--needless comma] plans to launch their Library project in November. It plans to scan the entire contents of the Stanford, Harvard and University of Michigan libraries and make what it calls "snippets" of the works available online, for free.

The creators and owners of these copyrighted works will not be compensated, nor has Google defined what a "snippet" is: a paragraph? A page? A chapter? A whole book? Meanwhile Google will gain a huge new revenue stream by selling ad space on library search results.

OK, that's clearly not a serious argument. "Snippets" may not have a legal definition, but it certainly is known among speakers of English to not mean anything as large as a chapter or book. The authors are trying to hard to scare the reader.

Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt has argued the "fair use" provision in copyright law allows Google to scan copyrighted books and put them on their Web site without seeking permission. He compares this to someone at home taping a television show and watching it later. Taped TV show are watched in millions of households every night and is quite legal; rebroadcasting that show to make a buck is not.

Next time Dr. Schmidt watches television, he should keep his ears open for the common disclaimer "rebroadcast of this program without the express written consent of" the broadcaster is "prohibited." Google's plans are tantamount to the same thing, profiting from someone else's work without permission. It isn't up to the broadcaster to track down someone profiting from their work, why should it be up to publishers and authors to do so?

Um, where to begin. First, such a disclaimer isn't actually voiced before any program aside from some sports events, so why Schmidt should keep his ears open is anyone's guess. Second, this is pretty obvious sidestep of the fair use issue. An honest argument would be to question fair use or whether this is similar to Betamax, not attack some straw man for not watching television.

The company contends it will allow authors of copyrighted works to "opt-out" of the free online library by notifying Google they don't want their works online. Most authors and publishers do not know who bought their books. And have you ever tried to get a live person on the phone at an Internet company?

Yes, actually, and I've found many "Internet companies" to be far better at providing human service than, say, Verizon, or many other (maybe they'd say "real") companies I've had to do business with. Also, what does knowing who bought your book have to do with this? I'm confused.

Anyway, the errors and oddness aren't really the problem here - what's terrible is that Schroeder and Barr would doubtless sell more copies of their books if they were to allow google users to find things within their contents, as some of these users would, I'm positive, buy the books through some online retailer. I shouldn't even have to explain this. Unfortunately, they're far too backwards and willfully ignorant to see this.