An excerpt from an interview on AM
suggests the later. Predictably, the President of the Association of
American
Publishers describes Google's intent to copy work under their
new print program as deceptive and underhanded, leaving
Publishers and
authors out of the revenue loop. Predictably, Google releases a
statement interpreting that attempt at blocking them of their exercise
of that right to copy and reprint that work as being counterintuitive
to the interests of both publishers and authors. The argument is made
that Google can benefit from the
advertising around these reprints,
although they do not own the work outright, and it appears that the
publishers figure they should be able to receive a portion of that
revenue.
It would have made more sense to actually charge Google
for the work to begin with, rather than argue over splitting revenue
with them. Of course if they were to receive a portion of that revenue,
or use Google's system on a site or portal of their own, they could
receive revenue on top of money they already made from those few who
bought the book. But then again, why would I want to buy the book if
I'm already sending revenue your way by way of the ads of what's
already online? It's a bit confusing.
I have to admit I was a
bit shocked to learn of the Print program to begin with, as ambitious
as it is, and as difficult as it is to get anything into print these
days, via the traditional routes. If you look at a post a week or so
ago on the Official Google Blog
about the topic, they mention that they will direct users to the sites
of the creators of the content, as well as those of the publishers, and
that the program is a way for those concerned to earn revenue through
contextual advertising. If this is indeed the case, why then is it that
the claim is made that copyright owners will have their work published
and indexed anyway?
I've done a search at the Google Print site and was directed to an actual scanned image of the page, and you can't read
copyrighted material anyway, unless the owner actually allows it. If I
can only read what they want me to, and I can't copy anything what is
the problem? In fact some pages are even restricted,
in spite of the books being included on the site. At the end of the day
this is about the industries problems getting their work sold and money
than it is about copyright, and it makes those attempting to sue look
like the RIAA, rather dumb, belligerent, shortsighted at best and
monopolistic.
Rather than leave traditional books out of
cyberspace, which is probably what should happen, or what some would
prefer, the Print program attempted to merge the two worlds both by
showing internet junkies quality literature for a change and exposing
authors to a new audience, thus increasing revenue through both
advertising and perhaps someone else out there might actually buy your
book. It's anyone's guess at this point, and they're still resisting
over in Europe. In the meanwhile read
this reprint of an op-ed column at the Times about the subject, and
continue to enjoy your books the old fashioned way; by actually reading
them.