Knowledge and ideas are different from private property in an important way. I can take an idea from Phil, give it to all my other friends and yet Phil still has the idea. We've all been enriched and Phil hasn't been impoverished. Or has he?

This has been the heart of the old Napster/RIAA conflict, and it now appears that Google may refight some of these battles with its "Library Project."

This is a limited comparison. The original Napster completely ignored the intellectual property rights of the artists and record companies. It was popular of course; something for nothing always is. But you can't give away what's not yours...legally.

Google wants to digitize the collections of five of the world’s largest university research libraries. The libraries are cooperating so that they can obtain a digital version of their holdings. The publishers of these scholarly journals are less enthused.

On May 20, Peter Givler, executive director of the Association of American University Presses...sent a letter to [Google's lawyer]. The letter challenged Google to defend its position on what would appear on the surface as a massive copyright violation and infringement on publishers’ rights and revenues. However, in researching this story, the issue of author copyrights has emerged as a possible major factor.

I'm guessing that Google never planned to just throw this material out onto the net free of charge. In the short run, it might be pretty great if they did. Researchers would have instant access to a world of information. But in the long run, if researchers (or those who fund the research) were unable to benefit from publication, then publication would come to a standstill.

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8)

Long before Marx ignored human nature to propose Communism, these founders chose to promote science by allowing Congress to give inventors and authors exclusive rights for limited times. Both halves of the coin are essential. If inventors or authors are unable to benefit from their inventions, they will be less likely to pour their energies into discovery. But if they were able to lock away this knowledge permanently, then science would be retarded by that extreme as well. The trick has always been to find the proper balance.

The old balance was arguably okay for its day, but technology has changed the scale. Now that we have the opportunity to distribute this information electronically, it would be inappropriate to allow dead tree journals to lock away this information on paper. The researchers, those who fund the research, and the journals that publish these papers can all benefit from this new medium. But they shouldn't be allowed to act as though this medium doesn't exist. The potential benefit of reasonably priced electronic distribution of this research is too great to ignore.

Google has been somewhat vague in informing the parties involved how they intend to use this information while respecting copyright law. Right now they are falling back on the doctrine of "fair use." But that doctrine would only allow Google limited length quotations and derivative works. Google's plans for this massive digital library are almost certainly bigger than what "fair use" would allow.

Being vague is probably a good strategic move for Google right now. They are working out the details of their plan as they go along.

While the old Napster gives a good negative example, the new legal Napster provides a model for the electronic distribution of copyrighted material that Google should closely study (I bet they already have). Napster subscribers pay a flat fee every month to listen to a huge library of music. Much of the music can be freely downloaded (in a protected file format) or streamed. Napster has obviously made deals with those artists to pay them (I'm guessing) a pro rata share of subscription fees based on the demand for that song. Other music is available for "purchase only" at $.99 per song.

If Google were to adopt a similar model, many authors and publishers might not cooperate with a flat subscription plan. The most popular journals might wish to forgo even the "purchase only" scheme hoping to force researchers or their institutions to maintain a subscription directly with that journal.

There's a difference between works of entertainment that Napster deals with and research papers. If an artist chooses to withhold his work completely from Napster or other online distributors, there would be little justification for Congress to intervene. As much as I like the musical "Grease" I fail to see how the progress of "science and the useful arts" would be retarded by allowing the authors to prohibit digital distribution.

A research paper on the causes and effects of greased lightning is another matter. If scholarly papers are being withheld from electronic publication, Congress should intervene under its Article 1 Section 8 "promotion" powers. Publishers, particularly those who publish publicly-funded research (which would be practically all of them), should be required to participate.

This would be analogous in some ways to "eminent domain." In this form of eminent domain, the government wouldn't be taking the knowledge away from the journals or the authors. All that is being taken is the right to dictate the manner of dissemination. And these authors and publishers would get just compensation. Publicly funded research could be required to be part of the flat fee subscription plan. Privately funded research (that is published publicly) could be "purchase only" papers.

Congress should closely monitor Google to make sure that the public (and the scientific community) benefits. Google could do itself a big favor by treading lightly - fairly compensating the authors while providing a valuable distribution service.

As nice as getting free music with the old Napster was, the new legal Napster is better. It's not just that I no longer fear a lawsuit from Shania Twain (I'm neither stealing her music NOR am I violating the restraining order). Its also that, being legal, the new Napster is able to use music industry research to help its customers find music they might actually enjoy. If you liked "This Love" by Maroon 5, you'd probably like "Somewhere Only We Know" by Keane.

I can imagine a similar function in a Google digital research service. It would be like an online research assistant available 24/7. It would not only allow much faster research, it would greatly aid scientists and engineers to stay current in their fields.