After several complaints, the Authors Guild finally took legal action against Google last… After several complaints, the Authors Guild finally took legal action against Google last week. More specifically, they filed a class action suit against Google’s Online library program for copyright infringement.

Allegedly, the library program sought to electronically publicize collections at universitites such as Harvard, Oxford, Stanford and the University of Michigan without the permission of the myriad authors who write the books that constitute these library collections.

Now this is a good and bad thing. In its commencement, people lauded Google for being the pioneer that revolutionized libraries of yesteryear. It was exciting and promising that information that belonged to the location of a library was now available to everyone everywhere promoting a democracy of intellectual property among anyone with Internet access.

However Google did not appear to purchase or obtain in any way the right from authors to make the fruits of their labor instantly accessible. And, technically, when reviewing the copyright statute, because they aren’t selling this information, it’s kind of vague as to whether or not Google is breaking a law.

Furthermore, the library program has an opt-out clause set in place. However it is based on the author’s initiative to restrict their material from being publicized. But a problem exists in the fact that an author will find his material already posted without ever giving permission for Google to publicize it. Another question is whether or not universities and public libraries have the right to do this. It is also interesting to look at both spectrums of the argument concerning the digitized material.

While some authors are livid and jumping on the bandwagon to file suit, others are thanking Google for the significant increase in sales that they owe to this free publicity. It seems we are on another end of the interminable battle we’ve been fighting with ownership when modernization meets music and media.

The fact is, there is a significant difference between a physical library and a digital one. Making it so that Google’s library falls underneath the statute already put in place does not take in to account that Google enables virtually limitless distribution of the information. Truthfully, although we love the search engine that has come to the rescue during many all-nighters dedicated to paper writing, Google’s library is reproducing and redistributing without the right to distribute.

Thus, there will have to be a series of compromises and baby steps taken so authors have more control over the redistribution of their books as the distribution model evolves. We can never ignore the constraints of our capitalistic society. If there is no control over information, it is problematic with regard to commerce. If we lose the ability to sell information, a large part of our economy vanishes and breadwinners in that sector are hurt.

Thus, there needs to be some kind of revenue model where Google and authors can both stand to profit, similar to how producers of TV shows profit when a show is in syndication. Advertising has made publications, such as The Pitt News, self-running publications that can publish Online and in paper format with virtually no cost. Using advertising in this way could be the red thread that has the potential to lucratively tie Google and the Authors Guild together.

Also, while this might be tedious, Google’s opt-out program should be revised so that they must first seek permission to digitize information. So many wonderful things have been created, from great works of literature to 500-page dissertations. The last thing we as a society want to do is deter people from sharing what they create because they will not get to reap the benefits of their hard work.