This is the most intellectually dishonest article title I’ve seen in quite some time: Google Print upsets children’s hospital.
On the one hand you have a ridiculous story about how scanning public domain books to make the knowledge easier for everyone to share is somehow detremental to kids. But if you look at the facts, it falls apart even more.
1. Only 4% of books make any money at all, and we’re talking about one story. Should laws be written to cover the very few?
2. The story Peter Pan isn’t even in the Google Print index, according to friends working at Google.
3. Publishers can opt-out of the program, so the children could live another day if the hospital wanted out.
4. How exactly does searching for a book take money out of a publishers pocket again? Would people really not read a book and instead click through Google page by page by hundreds of pages to read it? Do people read search results instead of reading websites? Seems to me like it’d spur on sales, not steal from them.
Some UK reporter seems to call that hospital for a quote every time any copyright issue is in the news.
Also, you missed a potential #5: The copyright of “Peter Pan” is hotly disputed – some editions were published before 1920, and there’s even a Project Gutenberg edition. So a search for “peter pan” in Google will already find several online copies of the entire text, Google Print or not…
To my eyes, reading the article, your complaint should be with the lazy hack who presumably phoned up GOSH out of the blue asking for a comment, in order to produce a stupidly sensational article which would get them lots of pageviews. If you read the single quoted sentence from a GOSH spokesman, it sounds like they had never heard of Google Print, and are just responding to the journo’s description of it.
As I see it: Lazy “journalism”, not corrupt evil hospital.
Comments are closed.