Fear not the unknown frontier
0 Comments
Last Friday, Google Inc, along with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, submitted a revised version of a pact - which was first released in October 2008 - to the US Justice Department.
On Nov 14, a senior Google executive said that the company would like to reach a similar agreement with Chinese publishers and writers, even as they, and their lawyers, were becoming more and more discontented with Google's approach.
The skirmish between Chinese authors and Google's digital library - Google Books - is, in fact, a dispute over divergent understanding of "information". At the same time, it highlights the worries of China's publishing industry, which disseminates information mainly through books and other print media.
Knowingly or otherwise, the Chinese media have underlined two key messages in their reportage on the Chinese authors' accusations and Google's settlement agreement.
First, it alleged that Google scanned the works of 570 Chinese writers for its digital library without seeking their permission - that is, illegally.
Second, that Google Books offered only $60 in compensation to those authors who accepted its scan request. As a result, Google Books' plan can be interpreted as buying copyrights at $60 per book.
However, as a highly commercial enterprise with cutting-edge business ideas, Google has learnt how to deal with existing forces in a market economy. Thus, it is unlikely to have infringed on copyrights intentionally.
First, many in the online community, for example Lawrence Lessig, argue that copyright protection is so strict as to hold back people's creativity.
Second, the $60 Google is believed to have offered is not to "purchase" copyright. Instead, it is for the authors' permission to make electronic editions of their books. Subsequently, the authors would be paid for each reading online.
Moreover, Google does not facilitate "free readings" as many people have thought. Only electronic extracts from the books would be made available online.
To read further, readers would have to pay a fee for digital access to the book. Out of that income from online reading, the author of the book would get between 45 and 63 percent share, which is more than six times the share that publishers pay to authors.
As a result, although the print world might have started feeling the pressure from Google Books, it is unnecessary for authors to worry about it.
In point of fact, many have argued that writers need not worry about Google Books since, as a digital library, it would provide a new platform for both publishing and distribution. That would only benefit writers.
Even if Google fails to bring out its own electronic book reader, those who have already done so, like Amazon.com and Founder Electronics would be able to reap the benefits.
Besides, both Amazon and Founder are establishing their own digital libraries. Through Amazon's e-book reader, the Kindle, people have realized that online reading is the future.
The history of mankind is mostly a history of fear and rejection of rising forces. People prefer familiar disadvantages to the uncertainty that comes with innovation. This is human nature.
Take the history of communications, for instance. The advent of printing triggered no less panic and resistance in the Western world than what Google Books has done today. Yet, despite the fierce opposition of the monks and priests who lived by copying ancient manuscripts then, printing managed to sweep the world.
Other examples include the invention of television and the iPod. History has proved again and again that new trends would always survive and thrive no matter how circuitous the process is.
Faced with the emergence of these digital libraries, our mindsets are getting constrained like those of the people of yore. The best thing to do in these circumstances is try not to be over-afraid.
We shouldn't let our anger and fears cloud our judgments even before we figure out what exactly the trends are like. Reflect before rejecting emerging forces - that is the lesson to learn from the copyright conflict.
Comments