“In the Internet era, information resources are excessive while attention is scarce.” Professor Zhang Ping from the Intellectual Property Institute of Peking University pointed to the essence of an eyeball economy in the current fast Internet age. The Internet giant Google is just one of those that could never reconcile themselves to loneliness. After stepping into auto, mobile phone, software, and energy industries, Google assumed the offensive in 2004 against the digital copyright industry. It announced the establishment of a high profile global-sharing free digital library, which once again successfully made itself the focus of public opinion.

 

 

In fact, as early as 2005 Microsoft launched a quasi digital library project – book–scanning. Quite different from Google, Microsoft only scanned books without copyright protection or licensed books to avoid infringement disputes. In three years  Microsoft established an index with 75 million books and 80 million academic articles. After a hard struggle, Microsoft finally decided to shut down the business last year. However rich and powerful, Google was still confident in handling the “hot potato” through out by Microsoft.  

 

In December 2004, Google announced a partnership with the New York Public Library as well as libraries at Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan. and Oxford. Google would scan the library’s well-known books into an electronic version and provide free search and reading services online.

 

After five years of quiet scanning, Google has included tens of millions of books in its database. Some have lost copyright protection, scattered in the corners of the libraries with no one interested; while other works are popular books at present.

 

Google’s digital library not only collects American books, but also includes works from large libraries in Europe and Japan. A library of Spain also took the initiative to join the project. The China Written Works Copyright Society disclosed on September 1 that as of August, Google had already scanned nearly 18,000 works from 570 Chinese writers and put them online without authorization. The Society updated the recent progress: after the first-round of negotiation with Mr. Eric Hartmann, Chief of the Google Book Search Strategic Partnership Department in the Asia-Pacific Region. It has been discovred that the actual number of copyright works from Chinese writers was far more than the original figure.

 

Since Google had not informed the copyright holders before scanning their works, this project has been troublesome from its inception, causing a number of copyright disputes in the United States and Europe. In 2005, the American Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers jointly launched a lawsuit against Google, accusing their full-text scanning of copyright violations. In September of this year, the French Publishers Association and the SGDL Writers Group sued Google’s Book Search project in a Paris Court, followed by the EU Publishers Union and Booksellers Union. This battle has been extended to China.  The China Written Works Copyright Society has called on all Chinese writers to join in the protest against Google. On November 18, the Society issued a copyright protection notice to Google, requiring them to submit a disposal plan for the previously unauthorized scanning of Chinese works, and to settle compensation issues before December 31, 2009.

 

Even so, Google still believes that it could “integrate the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. “When claiming to build the digital library, Google had already foreseen the copyright licensing issues. However, ‘open, interactive and sharing’ is the essence of Internet and also an inevitable trend. Google has fully realized this feature, so that it dares to ‘take the bull by the horns’.” Professor Zhang Ping explained.

 

 

In the face of endless accusations and lawsuits, Google decided to choose reconciliation. By the end of 2008, Google had reached a settlement with the U.S. Authors Guild, claiming that it would pay USD125 million for copyright registration and would give each author 60 USD in compensation.

 

Upon receipt of protest from Chinese writers, Google published a Statement of Reconciliation via the China Written Works Copyright Society. In this statement, Google divided the terms into two categories: “agree with reconciliation” and “disagree with reconciliation”. If writers agreed, “at least 60 USD” will be paid to each author, and another 63% of revenues from online reading will be paid on the condition that the right holder submits “application” by him. If no application is submitted by June 5 of next year, it is deemed as a waiver of their rights. If “disagree” is chosen, the writers had to sue Google before January 5, 2010.

 

The statement triggered a great rebound. Google’s “rudeness” sparked a new round of public condemnation. For a time, Google became the target of public criticism. “Cultural hegemony”, “monopoly” and other accusations poured in, one after another. The Association of American Publishers, related European organizations and Chinese writers all reacted against the statement.

 

 

“Compensation is not the core. The real problem is that Google has scanned my works before getting my permit and has never come into contact with me afterwards. Although culture resources need to be shared, it should be within the scope permitted by law, in other words, under the premise of protecting individual rights and respecting copyright.” Vice Chairman of China Writers Association and well-known writer Zhang Kangkang said in the interview.

 

Coincidentally, the Chairman of the International Publishers Union Mr. Herman also made similar remarks at the International Copyright Expo held on October 24 in Beijing: “Principle, rather than compensation, is the most important issue.” He also said since the litigation costs are too high, reconciliation will be chosen as the final settlement, but he hoped new breakthroughs would be made in the interim.

 

“Many people think this reconciliation agreement is a form of authorization. In fact, this agreement has a big problem: if it is approved by the U.S., it would subvert the licensing rule of the entire copyright industry – authorization before use. Furthermore, it will grant Google a monopoly of copyright resources, on which the digital publishing industry has lived.” said Zhang Hongbo, Deputy Director–General of the China Written Works Copyright Society.

 

In Europe, this objection seems to have gone much further than “economics”. On September 7, the European Union organized a hearing on Google’s digital library in Brussels, Belgium. At the meeting, a principal from the book department of the French Ministry of Culture claimed that Google’s reconciliation agreement would constitute a very significant risk to cultural diversity. Google can rate the works according to political or ideological considerations, and decide not to provide or modify particular works by itself. A week earlier, the German government had submitted related objection to the federal court in Manhattan.

 

Europe substantively responsed immediately after Google revealed its plan: A European digital library would be created to fight against Google’s “cultural invasion”. In order to forestall Google, the European Digital Library was formally put into use on November 20, 2008.

 

 

Compared with the Chinese writers’ collective condemnation and protest, China’s digital copyright industry appears to be surprisingly quiet. Our reporter tried to interview some related business operators, but was turned down.

 

The Founder Group is the first digital copyright company to break this quietness. In an interview with China Economic Weekly, Senior Vice President of the Founder Group Mr. Fang Zhonghua said: “The public finally started to pay attention to the copyright issues in digital publishing industry. We have been insisted in this field for so many years and gone through many pains. Now we finally see hope.” “China’s digital publishing market has been matured. We are now expecting the turning point. We have cried for this for four years, and now it finally comes.”

 

According to Zhang Hongbo, “China’s digital book industry has developed for a decade. Even the most famous Superstar, Founder Apabi, etc., has only reached the capacity of 300,000 to 400,000 books. Compared with 10 million from Google’s digital library, we have no competitive advantage.”

 

Maybe this is also an opportunity for China’s digital copyright industry. When participating in the “Olympic Games in the Publishing Industry” – the 2009 Frankfurt Book Fair in Germany on October 14, Director of the General Administration of Press and Publication Mr. Liu Binjie disclosed that the value of China’s digital publishing industry will reach 75 billion Yuan in 2009, surpassing the output of the paper publishing industry for the first time. In the next few years, the number of China’s digital publishing users will grow by about 30% and the annual output will increase by 50% every year, which is much faster than the traditional publishing industry.

 

Google is not the only one encountering network infringement in China. In 2007, Superstar was sued by over 500 authors. From the perspective of right holders, China’s digital libraries and Google library is of no difference.

 

At the International Copyright Expo, Vice President of Internet Society of China Mr. Gao Lulin presented his wish: “I hope the legal system of China’s Internet will not only fully respect the copyright holder’s work, respect the talents and respect their intellectual property, but also promote the synchronous development of Internet business. Therefore, right holders, Internet business and public users will reach a win-win situation and jointly promote its prosperity, which is also the goal of copyright legal protection in current information age.”

 

 

As of this dispatch, the case of Google’s digital library is still up in the air. We believe that upon reflection of this case, it will have a long and far-reaching impact on China’s digital copyright industry. In the face of Google’s digital library, it is imperative for China’s digital copyright industry to reexamine itself and improve its own business.