Laura Quilter and Siva have brought some clarity to my thinking with posts concerning the Google Print inititative. Laura rightly demonstrates that my last post fails to clearly explain what I mean by “handing over … control” to the for-profit Google corporation. Laura states –

[...]

At this point, we’re not sure if the information is “already controlled” – I suppose that’s what the lawsuit will determine. However, this “new added value” is, as Siva points out, under latent patent control. If Google has their way, the other “of many” services will be forced to the sidelines due to mediocre user interfaces/database management crippled by patent law. Of what use will the freedom to exercise “fair use” in the creation of an electronic database be if the deliverance of that database is controlled by software idea patents?

[...]

Laura Quilter: “The point of people’s support for Google Print is not that we support Google, love Google, or want Google to control our access to information. The point is that Google, and any other entity who wants to do it, should be able to add value to information. Google should not be THE ONE; Google should be ONE OF MANY.”

This is important:

[...]

On Laura’s first point: Google will use its patents to ensure there is no real competition. We are talking about the next Microsoft here. Why would Google allow competition? I am afraid “more speech” is wishful thinking here.

On Laura’s second point: Publishers have been doing exactly what she prescribes here. They have been doing it for almost a decade. [...]

Obviously, the burden to opt out multiplies with the number of organizations that have to addressed by opt-out processes. Which only serves to weaken Googles’ opt-out excuse.

One other point is that the Yahoo project or older search databases like Lexis (object of the American Supreme Court Case of New York Times Co. v. Tasini) clearly show that you can build useful search databases while clearing the necessary rights. Google is not the only one, but they certainly seem very aggressive compared to most other projects in ignoring everyone else’s copyrights.

I happen to dislike Google intensily because of their failure to address data protection issues adequately. However, my opinion about their copyright violations would not change one bit if they were a respectable company instead of Spam and Spyware Central.

I agree with Siva – libraries are great and important.

[...]