I originally wrote this post after publication of the NY Times editorial by Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, noted below. After some consideration, however, I decided to withhold judgment and wait for the revised Google Book Settlement that was eventually mandated by the federal courts. The revised settlement was made public late Friday.

Throughout the history of civilization, at any one time, there has always been a large-scale dynamic in play, a momentous prize at stake, and one competitor who emerged victorious. The measure of such victories, however, is not in the accomplishment, but in what the victors do with their fragile, momentary claim to power. Feed yourself and you go in the junk bucket of tribal butchers, charismatic frauds and political plunderers that have been the inevitable, predictable rule. Feed the world and you transcend the basest of all human traits.

On Friday, October 8, 2009, an editorial written by Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, appeared in the New York Times. Titled, A Library to Last Forever, the editorial made the case for Google’s proposed settlement with the Authors Guild over Google’s attempts to exploit content they do not own. (It is not at all clear that the Authors Guild has standing to act on behalf of copyright holders in crafting such a settlement.)

After explaining why it is important to digitize books (so everyone can have access; so they won’t get lost in a flood), Brin states Google’s selfless case:

Because books are such an important part of the world’s collective knowledge and cultural heritage, Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, first proposed that we digitize all books a decade ago, when we were a fledgling startup. At the time, it was viewed as so ambitious and challenging a project that we were unable to attract anyone to work on it. But five years later, in 2004, Google Books (then called Google Print) was born, allowing users to search hundreds of thousands of books. Today, they number over 10 million and counting.

The next year we were sued by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers over the project. While we have had disagreements, we have a common goal — to unlock the wisdom held in the enormous number of out-of-print books, while fairly compensating the rights holders.

It is important to note what is being omitted here. Nowhere does Brin acknowledge what changed between 1999 and 2004: that Google found itself with such massive cash-on-hand that it was able to fund the entire book-scanning project itself. It did not need to “attract anyone” any more, so Google simply plowed ahead — without asking for permission from relevant rights holders. Too, there is no admission or acknowledgment of a profit motive in Brin’s statements, yet Google clearly intends to profit from this enterprise. Despite protestations that Google is “unlocking wisdom”, Google is in fact stockpiling other people’s intellectual property for its own economic benefit.  [ Read more ]