If you haven’t got a copy of today’s New York Times magazine in which the cover article is

“WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO BOOKS? Readers take heart! (Publisher, be very, very afraid.) Internet engines will set them free.”

You will want to read it. The author isn’t as informed on copyright law or its history as he is on the mechanics of the Google Library Project, but he makes some good points. Among his more contentious concepts is one in which he would impose a quid pro quo for copyright claimants and authors. He calls it the ‘counterbalance’ that is needed to make copyright more like patents (just what we need, huh?). He echoes the best biggest reason, if there is one, for legitimizing the Google Library Project as “Having searchable works is good for culture.” He proposes that the copying be a new ‘covenant’ and be a precondition to a copyright arising. Kelly would call it a “copyduty” that a copyright creator has an obligation to allow the work to be copied for searching purposes. “No search, no copyright”.

No small ambition does Mr Kelly articulate. Not to mention how such a ‘covenant’ comports with international treaties and laws…..

This entry was posted by Kate Spelman on Sunday, May 14th, 2006 at 8:08 pm and is filed under Copyrights. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.