Robbins Library Notes

Good morning, readers!

Many of you are likely aware of, and perhaps are (heavy) users of, Google Book Search.  For those who don’t know, Google Book Search allows users to search for full-text, scanned copies of millions of books, many of which are out-of-print or hard to find.

However, Google Book Search has not been without controversy.  Some of the books which have been scanned into the database are still in copyright.  This hasn’t made the publishing industry or authors happy, because they view Google Book Search as a violation of copyright, which means no revenue from royalties and such that authors and publishers are owed.  Google, on the other hand, saw their scanning project as falling under the “fair use” clause of copyright.

Needless to say, the upshot of this led to a lawsuit filed by the Authors Guild against Google.  Two days ago, after a few years of negotiations, the Authors Guild and Google reached a deal.*  All sides have come to an agreement that allows Google Book Search to continue while paying authors and publishers (back) royalties for their work.

Why is this important to philosophical research?  Well, from what I’m reading, it looks like the deal will benefit all the interested parties — Google will be able to keep the books it has scanned in the database, and continue to add even more books to its database, which means that more texts become available to researchers.  It also means that publishers and authors will get paid what they’re due, and which may make them more amenable to contributing to the database.

Additionally, beyond the mere pragmatic aspects of the settlement, it also raises some interesting questions about the nature of texts, and our interactions with texts, something touched on in a slightly different context by Peter Brantley, in “Homes for Good (Orphan) Books.”

How do we, as philosophers, engage with and access philosophical texts in pedagogy, writing, and research?  There are some interesting and as yet barely discussed questions around these issues.

Thoughts, readers?

Update 11/03/2008: There has been some additional discussion on Peter Brantley’s blog, which is worth reading.

*A hat-tip to the family member who forwarded this on to me.