Google, Just go with Opt-In; it's the right thing to do!

One would find it hard to contend that digitizing books is a great idea. It is beneficial for both the consumers and the authors. Indeed it allows for easier and faster access to books anywhere in the world. On the other hand, authors get an exposure devoid of any territorial restrictions. Sounds like a win-win for all; so why is it that the writer’s guild and other authors do not want Google to engage in such “philanthropy?” Because it is far from it!

Google, although, started the Google Books project on a smaller scale providing snippets of copyrighted books, now wants to provide complete text without letting the publishers or authors of such works have any say prior to making the text available. In other words, Google wants to create an “opt-out” system where it gets the authority to scan and make available online all copyrighted (and of course, non-copyrighted work which is already in the public domain) work and if an author does not want his/her work to be made available online they can contact Google and “opt-out” of the system. Indeed, any sale that Google will make of the books, two-thirds of it will go to the authors and/or publishers.

“Opt-out” system, even though, sounds like a great deal for all the authors involved, also gives Google monopoly over work for which one is not able to determine authorship or locate the author, the so called “orphan works.” Scholars estimate that roughly half of all the books in the world (or perhaps on some other planet too) are orphans. Allowing an “opt-out” system would give Google monopoly over digitizing such books and avail profits from their sale. It may be argued that it is still not a bad system because if that orphan author contacts Google and establishes authorship, he/she may collect the royalties or “opt-out” of the system. This may work well in theory, but any type of monopoly is not good for the ultimate beneficiaries of this technology – the consumers. Giving Google a monopoly over orphan works would preclude all other e-book providers such as Amazon (Kindle), Barnes and Noble (Nook) etc. from accessing these orphan works. In essence, Google could maximize its profits by selling these works for arbitrary prices due to lack of any competition.

“Opt-in” system on the other hand, allows authors and publishers to join Google Books on their own free will. Google does not want this because it does not want to contact all publishers and authors known everywhere. Google does not have to do so. Given the rapid growth of e-book technology and Google’s unparalleled (unless you consider Bing) search capabilities any author or publisher would be stupid (for a lack of better word) to not join Google Books. For authors, it would be getting worldwide exposure and sales from minimal effort on their part. Google won’t have to go to authors and publishers; they will all run to Google. But yes, in this system, Google will loose its monopoly over orphan works. And so it should. This system will allow other market players to digitize these works and make them available to the consumers. However, Congress would have to step in before ANYONE could digitize these orphan works – but that’s a discussion for another day (I am already way over 200 words).

In fairness to all – Google, authors, publishers, consumers, other e-book competitors and orphans – “opt-in” is the way to go. If Google is going to use the argument that making digitized “copies” of copyrighted work by scanning in the first place was “fair-use,” it cannot say that letting authors/publishers “opt-in” is unfair. Google cannot act like a whinny five year old who wants it all. Because an inapposite system is unfair to us!!