Adler, Allan, et al.  “The Battle over Books: Authors and Publishers Take on the Google Print Library Project.”  The New York Public Library, New York.  17 Nov. 2005. 

            On November 17, 2005 WIRED magazine and the NYPL sponsored a discussion on the Google Print Library Project.  The panelists were Nick Taylor, representing the Authors Guild, David Drummond, representing Google, Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law professor specializing in copyright law, and Allan Adler, representing the Association for American Publishers (AAP).  The discussion was intended to flesh out the issues raised by Google’s project and to gain insight into the future of the digital indexing of books.  However, rather than elucidate the copyright issues inherent in this debate, this discussion illustrated that economic incentives are at the heart of the conflict between Google and its opponents.   

            The first to speak, Taylor, immediately alludes that the Authors Guild’s objection was routed in its lack of economic benefit from Google’s program.  He claims that Google’s actions represent, “a rogue version of eminent domain, only without the compensation that government routinely gives.”  Adler’s statements reveal a similar point-of-view in which the real threat Google poses is an economic one.  Adler declares that since Google is a for-profit company its use of copyrighted material is essentially robbing copyright owners of the ability to exploit the market for their works. 

            Through this discussion it becomes apparent that the Authors Guild and the AAP believe that Google has created a new market for their works.  In addition, they believe that Google’s program will have a negative effect on their ability to access this new market.  Thus, a finding of fair use seems inappropriate to the Authors Guild and the AAP as in their view the fourth factor, effect on the market, should weigh against Google.  However, in the course of this discussion, both the Authors Guild and the AAP failed to show how Google Book Search impedes authors and publishers from licensing their work to search engines or anyone else.   

            This post to Google’s official blog is intended to provide readers with insight into the purpose behind Google Print in light of the lawsuit filed by the AAP on October 19, 2005.  The explanation of the rationale behind Google’s project shows that Google believes its use of copyrighted material is non-infringing.  In this blog Google states that it fully respects copyright law and the creativity it protects.  However, Google adds that Copyright law, “is all about which uses require permission and which don’t.”  Throughout this post, Google affirms that its scanning of copyrighted material is fair use and thus consistent with the Copyright Act. 

            Additionally, Google uses this post to explain the benefits their Library Project bestows upon its users.  The project is referred to as, “one giant electronic card catalog that makes all the world’s books discoverable with just a few keystrokes by anyone, anywhere, anytime.”  However, a workable “electronic card catalog” could not exist were Google to make anything less than full copies of as much text as possible.  Google illustrates this concept, showing that the copying and indexing required for the Print Library Project parallels that necessary to create a useful search engine.  Google insists that the practices it follows in its Library Project are the same as those it utilizes in the creation of its search engine database for websites.  If Google were not allowed to copy and index websites without explicit permission, its search engine could not exist.  Thus, Google maintains that complete copying is required to fulfill the purpose of their project.  This fact is likely to aid Google in a finding of fair use, as the ruling in Kelly v. Arriba Soft states that entire copies may be fair use if the amount copied is the minimum amount necessary.