Mina Soliman Spring 2021 Professor Thomas K. Cheriya The Google Books case is controversial modern dilemma that our generation is experiencing as result of communication revolution. The case presents legal implications pertaining Fair Use exemption and ethical debate to the tension between Google’s altruistic mission and authors’ natural right of work ownership. Google Book project goal was to digitalize printed copyrighted in and out printed books into an online searchable database through scanning and digitization, with limitation of providing snippet views of scanned pages in search results. This, however, opposes the copyrights of some authors who believe that that Google scanning the material without permission is infringement action against their rights. In my analysis, I believe that Google should be allowed to scan books and maintain a searchable copy in their database. Google is the online search engine for most of the information. Google’s mission to organize world’s information and make it universally accessible is one of the major steps of all times. It is fundamental for humanity to share information and data worldwide for prosperity across the global. Additionally, less-known authors and publisher would be able to advertise their work to millions of users worldwide for profit and sharing their content. Outcopyrighted book should be made available to users for free to promote online accessibility of books. However, authors have the right to benefit from their product. Authors should control what is shared with online users for free. Google should reach to agreement with the authors of copyrighted books to share their books online with subscriptions. ogle scanned and entered the whole work into their searchable database, but only provided "snippet views" of the scanned pages in search results to users. This had mirrored a similar approach Amazon had taken for book previews on its catalog pages.[5] A separate Partner Program also launched in 2004 allowed commercial publishers to submit books into the Google Books project, which would be searchable with snippet results (or more extensive results if the partner desired) and which users could purchase as eBooks through Google, if the partner desired.[6] Authors and publishers began to argue that Google's Library Partner project, despite the limitations on what results they provided to users, violated copyrights as they were not asked ahead of time by Google to place scans of their books online. By August 2005, Google stated they would stop scanning in books until November 2005 as to give authors and publisher the opportunity to opt their books out of the program.[7] violated by scanning material without permission The case concerned fair use in copyright law and the transformation of printed copyrighted books into an online searchable database through scanning and digitization. The case centered on the legality of the Google Book Search (originally named as Google Print) Library Partner project that had been launched in 2003. Though there was general agreement that Google's attempt to digitize books through scanning and computer-aided recognition for searching online was seen as a transformative step for libraries, many authors and publishers had expressed concern that Google had not sought their permission to make scans of the books still under copyright and offered them to users. Two separate lawsuits, including one from three authors represented by the Authors Guild and another by Association of American Publishers, were filed in 2005 charging Google with copyright infringement. Google worked with the litigants in both suits to develop a settlement agreement (the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement) that would have allowed it to continue the program though paying out for works it had previously scanned, creating a revenue program for future books that were part of the search engine, and allowing authors and publishers to opt-out. The settlement received much criticism as it also applied to all books worldwide, included works that may have been out of print but still under copyright, and may have violated antitrust aspects given Google's dominant position within the Internet industry. A reworked proposal to address some of these concerns was met with similar criticism, and ultimately the settlement was rejected by 2011, allowing the two lawsuits to be joined for a combined trial.
