Google clashes with UK publishers over digital libraries

Summary:Google claims its Book Search helps publishers sell books, but publishers beg to differ

Google has again clashed with publishers over its controversial programme to scan, digitise and make searchable the collections of libraries in the US and the UK.

Publishers hit out at Google over the plan, and the effect it will have on copyright, at Monday's launch of the All Party Internet Group report on digital rights management.

"There is the serious issue of the digitisation of massive library collections where the majority of works are in copyright. Google digitises entire books, not just indexing but displaying the entire work," said Hugh Jones, copyright counsel for the Publishers Association.

"It's important to remember that publishers want to publish, and find markets — we're not interested in locking up content. We love search engines, but there is an instructive distinction between library services and publisher services," added Jones.

The Google Book Search project, previously called Google Print, was launched in 2004. It quickly attracted controversy, and Google is currently being sued for alleged copyright infringement in the US.

Rachel Whetstone, European head of communications for Google, defended the search giant's project, saying that only two or three pages of each copyright-protected text were available for viewing.

"If publishers don't want to participate in the books programme, we exclude them. Sixty percent or more of books have unclear copyright status," said Whetstone.

Google also claimed that it boosts publishers' sales by including adverts and information on where to buy the books.

"We put adverts on the side [of the Web page]. With millions of people online, we turn those searchers into buyers," said Whetstone.

She argued that the project doesn't necessarily infringe on copyright law, because of the way Google displays the text. "To make a book searchable, we have to index the whole work, then we display snippets," she said.

"You copy the whole text," said Jones.

Whetstone replied: "That is how a search engine works — scan first, then index."

"You are creating a massive digital file without consulting the copyright owner, when the burden of responsibility [to prove copyright infringement] rests on the copyright owner," responded Jones. "A powerful organisation like Google has an exact copy of works, and is making that available to a number of libraries."

"You take a different view to us, and that is what a court will decide. We believe our programme falls within copyright law," said Whetstone.

Lynne Brindley, chief executive of The British Library, didn't appear surprised that Google has found itself at odds with the established print industry.

"There's not necessarily a coincidence of interest between search engines and copyright holders," said Brindley.

Laurie Kaye of Laurence Kaye Solicitors backed up this point.

"Commercial players are concerned about the loss of control over their content. Their content database being held on other servers creates uncertainty. I'm not going to go into the legalities of what Google is doing."

Google responded by saying that it was not a content provider, but instead pointed to others' content.

"We believe we help to find others' content. We have addressed those concerns [of commercial players]," said Whetstone.

Topics: Networking

About

Tom is a technology reporter for ZDNet.com, writing about all manner of security and open-source issues.Tom had various jobs after leaving university, including working for a company that hired out computers as props for films and television, and a role turning the entire back catalogue of a publisher into e-books.Tom eventually found tha... Full Bio

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Related Stories

The best of ZDNet, delivered

You have been successfully signed up. To sign up for more newsletters or to manage your account, visit the Newsletter Subscription Center.
Subscription failed.