I love Google, I just don’t trust them

I really do love Google. I use Gmail for my personal email. I have the Google app on my iPhone. I use Google to search for everything from strange diseases to tips on writing better dialogue. I even use Google to analyze the visitor stats for this blog. So I think it is safe to say that Google is a part of my everyday life.

But I still don’t trust them. Let me qualify that: I don’t trust Google with their plan to profit from millions of out-of-print by digitizing the world of literature.

In theory, the idea is a good one, however. On the positive side, as noted by this New York Times article, Google’s digitizing project would give access to researchers, academics and everyday folks like you and I to books we’d probably otherwise not even know existed:

Readers and researchers would have access to millions of out-of-print and rarely seen books online, libraries nationwide would gain access to new volumes in electronic form and authors and publishers would have new ways to profit from digital copies of their works.

Nothing wrong with that, right? On the surface, no, there isn’t anything wrong with it. But dig a little further and two major questions begin to emerge: 1) Will Google really be fair to authors in the long term, and look out for their interests? And 2) Will Google protect the privacy of those who search and read the books in Google’s massive database?

The NYT article, which profiles writer/attorney Scot E. Grant, who is filing ’sweeping opposition’ to the settlement that Google came to with groups such as the Authors Guild. Mr. Grant says:

“This is a predominantly commercial transaction and one that should be undertaken through the normal commercial process, which is negotiation and informed consent,” Mr. Gant said in an interview. Google and its partners are “trying to ram this through so that millions of copyright holders will have no idea that this is happening.”

The article continues:

…Mr. Gant argues that the agreement, which gives Google commercial rights to millions of books without having to negotiate for them individually, amounts to an abuse of the class-action process. He also contends that it does not sufficiently compensate authors and does not adequately notify and represent all the authors affected.

While I’m not a lawyer and probably don’t understand all the legal intricacies involved in this case, my own objection to Google’s plans is based on the idea that I don’t think one entity should have so much control over so many titles. Especially troubling for is that this ‘entity’ happens to be a for-profit corporation.

Let’s face it, the bottom line at Google is profits and keeping shareholders happy. Those interests are not aligned with the rights of authors, the privacy of the reading public, and equal access to all the titles they have digitized so far. Maybe it’s the anti-capitalist in me, but I just don’t think a project like this should be undertaken by a corporation.

I think Christopher Buckley, an author and political satirist who opted out of the Google deal, said it best at the end of the article:

He said he was skeptical that the agreement was increasing the public good. “Whenever I hear capitalism proclaiming noble motives,” he said, “something makes me check my wallet.”

What do you think of Google’s plans to digitize millions of titles? Do you trust them? Leave a comment below with your thoughts!

Related posts

• Literary criticism being shaped by Google
• Amazon Kindle: You only “rent” the content, you don’t own it
• Warning: Your electronics fair game for search at borders
• Barnes & Noble releases free iPhone app (review included)
• Two large publishers going digital, kind of

Read More: Publishing News, Technology, The Interwebs, eBooks