If Google loses, the precedent won't just affect the search giant, but other digital archives as well. We look at three possible outcomes of this legal battle.The future of digital libraries seemed to ride on a single lawsuit last week, as the New York-based Authors Guild went to war against search king and Internet superpower Google.
Led by three Authors Guild members, the complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction to shut down Google Print—a fledgling service that will scan digital copies of millions of books from five prestigious research collections, allowing Google users access to bite-sized pieces of this database through keyword searches.
"The authors are all tremendously supportive," said Paul Aiken, a spokesperson for the Authors Guild, a legal organization that defends over 8,000 members. "They told us, 'It's about time somebody did this.'"
Google responded with an unapologetic press release: "Just as Google helps you find sites you might not have found any other way by indexing the full text of web pages, Google Print, like an electronic card catalog, indexes book content to help users find, and perhaps buy, books."
The search king wasn't backing down.
What's at stake? This legal battle has the potential to change the way in which consumers find and purchase copyrighted works.
The Author's Guild is crying copyright infringement. Google is responding with the fair use argument.
If Google wins, a wealth of information (albeit in truncated form) will be available to Internet users everywhere, and authors will have to consider this reality when they publish.
If Google loses, the very concept of digital books archives may take a hit.
Publish.com spoke with legal experts and publishing consultants to map out three possible future scenarios that could result from this crucial lawsuit.
What if Google beats the lawsuit?
If Google Print survives this lawsuit, anyone can browse books at the world's most famous collections at home—a step those individual libraries can't make alone.
"Obviously, the library community has struggled for years to use these resources," said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney at the legal watchdog organization, Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"It seems natural that libraries could take advantage of this technology. Hopefully with the Google case, some of the legal obstacles will be overcome."
Why is Google selling ads in print magazines? Click here to read more.
Some libraries currently offer members access to digital periodical indexes like Lexis-Nexis or ProQuest, but they could never mount the expensive task of digitizing and archiving an entire collection of books.
Armed with untold millions of dollars in ad revenues and a powerful server infrastructure, Google could handle that task.
Besides libraries, Google Print could revolutionize publishing as well—lifting thousands of writers out of obscurity and exposing Internet savvy customers to millions of new texts.
If the print search engine survives the lawsuit, some experts think that publishers could use Google as a platform to sell books.
"It has great potential as a marketing tool, when the information about the book and how to order it is available. Look at the success of Amazon's "Look Inside The Book," added Lorraine Shanley, a publishing consultant who has worked with Book-of-the-Month Club and HarperCollins, and is now a principal at Market Partners International.
Next Page: A loss could mean the end for Google Print.
Instead of paging through the latest bestsellers on Amazon.com, discerning book-buyers could jump on Google.com to discover scholarly texts and forgotten novels.
A win for Google could digitize millions of more obscure texts that never earned luxury treatment on retail Web sites.
What if the Authors Guild wins the lawsuit?
If the Authors Guild can prove "massive copyright infringement," then Google Print will be scrapped before it even begins.
William Patry, an intellectual property lawyer and blogging legal scholar, explained this post-lawsuit scenario: "Any other author or publisher could threaten Google Print, and that could have a chilling effect on this project," he explained. "In that respect, it could be a landmark case."
While the Authors Guild lawsuit only names three writers, it implies the threat of thousands of independent authors as well.
A successful trial could spark a chain reaction of litigation leveled by everybody from writers to giant publishing houses.
Yahoo Backs New Digital Book Group. Click here to read more.
For instance, the Association of American Publishers pledged its support last week, representing the legal and financial interests of over 300 companies, non-profits and university presses.
The EFF's von Lohmann said that the lawsuit could potentially threaten countless other Web-based tools as well.
"If Google loses, the precedent will be set not just for publishing, but for other archives as well," he said. "That could implicate search engines that archive images and World Wide Web [content] as a whole."
Once a legal precedent is set, publishers and authors might pursue other Web archiving sites like Dogpile.com or Yahoo.com next.
In the worst-case scenario, lawsuits could strip millions of archived pictures, designs and texts from the major search sites, leaving behind empty and ineffectual public archives.
What if someone else takes charge of online libraries?
While that gloomy, lawsuit-blighted future might not be far off, some experts think that the Author's Guild lawsuit might produce a new, profitable model for digital archives.
What's it all about, Google? Click here to read more.
No matter what happens to Google Print, Shanley thinks Web-based text archives still have potential.
"The demand for digital access to published materials hasn't really been tested because no one has invented the iPod equivalent of a digital reader," she said.
Google Print has taken the first step towards archiving books, paving the way for any number of new, profitable models.
While digital books haven't replicated the ease or success of the iPod interface, the Google debate could prompt companies to create more innovative pay models for text archives.
"It's not our objective to end all efforts of this sort," said Aiken, explaining the Authors Guild intentions. "The basic idea of digitizing works is just fine, but third parties need a proper license to do so—a license that gives creators some control over the copying and distribution."
Yahoo Inc., for example, may offer one such alternative. The search and portal company recently announced their participation in The Open Content Alliance, and plans to provide digital versions of books, academic papers, video and audio.
Unlike Google, Yahoo hopes to index only works that exist in the public domain. It won't include any copyrighted material unless it receives the express permission of the author.
This approach will severely limit the index, and most books in bookstores will not be included.
Even if the Google Print lawsuit kills full-scale library access to digital archives, publishers are banking on a digital future.
"Although the market for digital access isn't there yet, increasingly publishers are digitizing and storing their books on site, which allows them to be printed on demand or in short runs," said Shanley.
In this third scenario, copy-fights and royalty disputes could keep millions of pre-digital books off Google's massive archive (excepting those in the public domain). Meanwhile, all new books would be digitized in a pay-per-view archive.
The way of the future will, in all likelihood, favor the digitization of books and other traditionally paper-based media. How accessible that information will be might be decided by the Author's Guild lawsuit.
Web Design 
