NEXT week details of a plan that could shape the future of books and publishing in the digital age will be spelled out in a New York courtroom. The plan is complex but, in a nutshell, search engine giant Google intends to scan and make available perhaps a million or more books that are out of print but still in copyright.

Google has the support of the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers , but it faces formidable opposition. Some 400 legal objections have been filed, and the US Department of Justice has serious concerns. The dispute was due to be resolved in court next week, but at the last minute Google and its partners asked for the case to be adjourned so they could make revisions. A hearing will still take place, but only to inform the parties concerned how Google intends to proceed.

The case is the culmination of a process that got under way several years ago when Google began scanning books in research libraries to create a searchable archive. Libraries liked it; they saw it as a way to improve access, particularly to rarely used books. But authors and publishers did not. In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed a suit to block the scanning of copyrighted books.

Last year Google hammered out a deal with the authors and publishers which, at first sight, appeared to please everyone. Under the Google Book Settlement , the company would be allowed to scan out-of-print books still in copyright unless

expressly asked not to by the copyright holder. That would greatly expand a treasure trove of information available to the serious researcher or the merely curious. Where else could I have learned that my great-great-grandfather was chief car builder for a small 19th-century railroad? Google also promised to supply every library in the US with a terminal for free public access, supported by advertising revenue.

Google also promised to come up with $125 million, partly to pay authors and publishers whose books it had scanned without permission before the settlement. On top of that, authors and publishers would

receive 63 per cent of the income from the project.

Nobody would get rich, but authors would earn some money and their books would remain available indefinitely – an important concern for many. The deal would also make available “orphan works”, books that are still in copyright but whose authors (or their heirs) can’t be located.

Done deal? Far from it. The settlement – around 300 pages of mind-numbing legal jargon – was received with howls of protest.

The justice department warned that the proposed settlement violated competition and copyright laws. Numerous groups filed objections, including the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Archive, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Amazon, Microsoft and the German government.

The objections cover a range of issues. Would Google gain a monopoly on copyrighted books that would make it the sole gatekeeper to a large body of knowledge? Could the deal limit authors’ rights to control their own works? Would there be any protection for non-US authors? Why should authors be forced to go to the trouble of telling Google if they do not want their works to be copied, and why should Google be absolved from identifying copyright owners? Why should the Authors Guild be considered to speak for all authors? Why should Google alone be given the right to use orphan works? The list could go on for pages. The whole thing is reminiscent of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the interminable legal proceedings in Charles Dickens’s novel Bleak House.

Perhaps the biggest concern is that the settlement in effect rewrites US copyright law – usurping the role that rightfully belongs to Congress. It would let Google keep on scanning while absolving it of liability should it fail to identify copyright owners or obtain their consent.

There are practical issues, too. Google has already bungled the

“The plan in effect rewrites US copyright law, usurping a role that ought to belong to Congress”

It’s mine, not Google’sGoogle says it just wants to give people access to out-of-print works, but its plans to scan millions of books are unfair to authors, argues Jeff Hecht

26 | NewScientist | 3 October 2009

OPINION

job of compiling a list of every book published in the US since 1923, and thus still under US copyright. By including every record it could find, it managed to collect every data entry error made over the past 86 years.

I write technical books and short fiction in addition to magazine articles. Searching under my name, I have found a book never published and a bogus co-author, as well as editions never available in the US. Worse, Google keeps adding new entries, which authors must go through. While writing this piece, I found more than 20 new entries about me. I haven’t written that many books.

It’s not just me. I also found a listing for the 1924 master’s thesis of a great-aunt who died long before my birth, plucked by Google from a library database. There’s no evidence it was published, or that she registered the copyright. If Google can list that as an out-of-print but still in-copyright book then god only knows what else is in there.

Whatever we authors contribute to the sum of human knowledge and culture should pass into the public domain in a reasonable time after our death. That should be a few decades, not the 70 years or more granted by current UK copyright law, for example, which benefits only a handful of individuals and big entertainment companies.

A database of out-of-print books would be a fabulous resource. But balancing all the interests involved is a huge challenge. Copyright law also needs an overhaul. All that will take time, of course – but unless the groundwork is done right, it will remain a noble project that never sees the light of day. ■

Jeff Hecht is a New Scientist

consultant based in Boston. He has

written, co-written and edited a total

of 12 books and is a member of the

Authors Guild and the Science Fiction

and Fantasy Writers of America

Comment on these stories at www.NewScientist.com/opinion

3 October 2009 | NewScientist | 27

Why are you doing conservation

work in Afghanistan?

It’s a fascinating place in terms of biodiversity.

Afghanistan is a crossroads of northern and

southern species as well as mountain specialists

like snow leopards and Marco Polo sheep.

Aren’t there more pressing issues to

attend to in a war zone?

It’s not just about snow leopards and other

wildlife: 80 per cent of the Afghan population

depends directly on natural resources for

their survival. If you don’t create a sustainable

natural resource base they can’t feed their

families and no amount of road-building and

school-building will result in a secure environment.

We see conservation as a pillar of reconstruction.

You helped Afghanistan create its first

national park this year. How is it going?

Overall things are going quite well and we’re now

looking to help establish three or four more. You

don’t hear much about good parts of Afghanistan

but there are good parts and we are working in

them and feel really optimistic.

What is the biggest threat to wildlife

in Afghanistan?

One of the major threats is the wildlife trade,

mainly furs. We have discovered the primary

driver for this trade is actually the international

community: people in the military or in

construction who are making a pretty decent

salary but don’t have much to spend it on.

What are you doing to stop the fur trade?

We started on military bases explaining what the

law is, both in Afghanistan and in the US. If you get

caught with a snow leopard pelt in the US, you’d

certainly get fined and probably go to jail. We

teach them how to distinguish snow leopards

from other pelts and show them other things

they can buy, like carpets. People are reached in

different ways: some are very influenced by the

beauty of nature and others by the prospect that

they could be fined, or go to jail, or both.

One-minute with…

Peter Zahler

Is it working?

The anecdotal evidence is that it has been highly

successful. Still, our best estimate is that there

are not many more than 100 snow leopards left.

The loss of just one individual therefore has an

enormous effect on the population.

What is the prognosis for wildlife

in the country?

I think it’s good. Despite all of the security concerns

we have found it a pleasure to work in Afghanistan

because the people get it; they are farmers and

herders and they know how important the plants

are wildlife are.

How do you stay safe?

We probably have the most stringent security

of any conservation programme anywhere.

We always leave the office at different times

and take different routes so we’re not presenting

ourselves as targets. Biologists often act like

cowboys, running around in the wild chasing

animals, but working in Afghanistan you can’t

do that. Interview by Phil McKenna

Afghanistan has become synonymous with human conflict, but there‘s another battle going on – for its biodiversity

LIS

A H

ER

B/A

LL

IAN

CE

FO

R IN

TE

RN

AT

ION

AL

WO

ME

N’S

RIG

HT

S

PROFILE

Biologist Peter Zahler oversees the US-based

Wildlife Conservation Society ’s work across

Asia and the South Pacific. He established the

Afghanistan office in Kabul in 2006