The Speculist

CORRECTION:

"Cole" emails to point out that contrary to my assumption, A Tale of Two Cities is not under copyright. Anything written prior to 1923 is in the public domain. Since that formed one of my points within this post, my face is just a little red.

Here's where you can read the novel in its entirety online.

In an age of partisan rancor unlike anything in living memory, it's refreshing to see displays of bipartisanship - two congressmen from opposite sides of the aisle coming together to discuss policy, draft legislation, or in retirement, to write a column on an issue that's important to the country.

It sure would help if they weren't dead wrong.

Retired congressmen Ms. Pat Schroeder (D) and Mr. Bob Barr (R - well actually he's a Libertarian now) managed to write a column on the Google Library Project - Google Print - without once considering the service that Google is performing.  Even to dismiss it.

We're both authors and both believe intellectual property should actually mean something.

And so we find ourselves joining together to fight a $90 billion company bent on unilaterally changing copyright law to their benefit and in turn denying publishers and authors the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.

The part of the U.S. Constitution that Schroeder and Barr are referring to is from Article I section 8.

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;

From the very beginning it was understood that intellectual property was a balancing act.  Promoting progress required both that writers and other innovators be allowed to benefit from their contribution, but also that the public be able to access that knowledge.  That balance was made at the time of the constitution by securing "exclusive" rights for a "limited" time.  Schroeder and Barr are complaining that the "exclusive" half of this equation is eroding.  Eroding in the hands of a company that must be evil because it's valued at $90 billion. 

But the "limited times" counter-balance eroded a long time ago.  For an example, let's go to the newly opened Google Print service and search for "A Tale of Two Cities."  Several versions and some study aids pop up .  Examining each version I discovered that this book is still copyrighted.  Charles Dickens wrote the book in 1859 and died in 1870.  

Why do we allow copyrights to be renewed indefinitely?  Was there any danger that Dickens would not have written his book unless he believed it would remain under copyright for 146 years...and counting?  I think not.  Is there no point when a literary work can be said to belong to the world?

Anyway, let's take a look at how Google is trampling on the rights of Charles Dickens.  Clicking on the first copy listed brings up the table of contents.  Aha! The first page of the book and you didn't pay for it!  There's even a page turn indicator so that you can click to see more.  So I clicked.  Two more pages came up and then I hit a dead end.  Google allows you to see the first three pages of a copyrighted book.  If you want to read more you are probably going to click one of the links in the bottom left corner to buy the book.

Oh, the horror!  You might actually read a page or three before buying.  I would never think to do that in a book store!

In fairness, Schroeder and Barr would probably not be too concerned if Google were only scanning in the first three pages of every book.  That would simply be the table of contents for many books.  But Google has scanned entire books.  So, instead of seeing just the table of contents for "A Tale of Two Cities" I could actually start reading the book if I knew the first line of the book.  It helps that this book has one of the most famous first lines of all time, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."

So I use the "search within this book" option and type in that line.  Sure enough, the first page comes up.  Again, though, I'm limited to three pages following that quote.  Now I'm sure that with clever searching I could continue to bring up three page sections of the novel.  In fact I did.  My fifth search term brought up pages 4, 5, and 6.  But that's a big hassle.  This sort of reading without paying will occur less often than just reading the book at the bookstore...or checking it out from the library.

Schroeder and Barr's problem with Google's move is that it is new.  Nobody has ever done this before.  Nobody could - technology has only now made this possible.  But thanks to this technology we can now search books for that one passage we remember but can't place.  We can also search within books for subjects of interest.  This is highly valuable to readers. 

The constitutional goal of promoting "science and useful arts" remains paramount.  But as technology changes, the balance must be revisited.  We should always seek to reward innovators (and their sponsors) sufficient to maximize innovation.  But innovation loses value the more it's locked away. 

All this will shake out in Google's favor.  We readers are going to love the service, and the writers and their publishers will come to appreciate the revenue stream flowing from Google. 

Our "leaders" will catch on an election or two after that.