Books, newspapers and Google
The logic goes like this:
…the major point is that Google has now conceded, with a very large payment, that information is not free. This leads to an obvious, critical question: Why aren’t newspapers and news magazines demanding payment for use of their stories on Google and other search engines?
True, Google has been forced to pay for content. But paying for the full content of a book and paying for access to metadata for a newspaper story are two completely different things. If Google scans a book into its database in its entirety, there’s no need for me to purchase that book. That kills the livelihood of publishers and offers.
However, what are newspapers loosing by “giving” their content to Google? Nothing. They’re gaining boat loads of traffic. Google is the most important referrer for almost any website. Why doesn’t Google charge newspapers for providing this traffic, a service far more valuable to individual publishers than an individual newspaper’s content is to Google? Not to mention the free search technology and API’s Google is providing to many newspapers.
The issue would be different if Google was providing full-text copies of newspaper content, which it is through its Google News Archive search. But again, what angered book publishers is that Google didn’t seek permission to scan some copyrighted material. In the case of the newspapers, Google sought permission and is providing a digitizing services that would have been cost-prohibitive for newspapers to pursue on their own. And Google is sharing a portion of the advertising dollars.
Is the revenue share fair? Maybe not. But to the victor goes the spoils. It hardly seems right to blame Google that they recognized opportunities that newspapers failed to see in their stubbornness. But I don’t see evidence that Google is being a bad-faith partner as it was in the case of some authors and publishers.
[Hat tip to http://pjnet.org/]