Monday, June 11, 2007

Stealing versus Search

An interesting Blog from those great book bloggers Booksquare

Stealing vs. Search - The Difference

Now don’t get us wrong, we think that Richard Charkin is a bright, savvy man. We would have, at one point, even suggested that he understood the difference between search and anonymity. Sigh. Let us try this one more time. Search is not about Google — search is about making sure your customers find you. Publishers are [...]

My response:
The premise of what you say is absolutely correct, search is fundamental to discovery and our switched on lives. I don't think anyone is in dispute here. What is in question is what Google and MS want to be when they grow up. If they merely want to sell ad space great no problem. If they want to sell books, which one has and the other hasn't decided on, then that is different.
There is also the thorny issue of the Orphan Act and potential associated ‘land grab’. The ownership of the digitised copy – is not really touched in your article.

If rights revert or the book gets 'lost' in the RUC or OP list then 'scan first and ask later' could be a real issue.

The problem is we are looking at the issues in a one dimensional way and anything can work when we argue in this manner. Rights are licensed not owned, there are term times there are constraints. Can authors choose to elect out if rights revert? Will Google use copy to publish albeit through a digital only format? Who will control resolution and will it remain persistent? Many questions are not answered but many assume that they know best and ‘pooh pooh’ any debate.