Google Print Library Project which started in 2004 set as their goal to scan the world books and make them accessible online. The access of this service will be with or without a fee, dependent on the status of publisher- and author rights of the book. Regarding these rights Google has settled a legal agreement – for 125m dollars - with few institutions which represent these rights. Nevertheless, next to the traceable financial value, the books could also be seen as a public asset or a treasury of a certain society. Therefore one could raise the question: is it wise and appropriate to hand over the public asset to a private company in return of a worldwide accessibility?
On the long term this project could be seen as a hard moral case, because two beneficial opportunities need to be balanced. From the bright side, this project could improve the society as useful information from different corners of the world would be easy accessible to almost everybody. From the other side, a private company cannot be fully trusted to have a will to act in the benefit of public as the aim of a private company is to make a profit.
In my opinion the books should be scanned and Google may use them as a profit generator, however, the state should monitor this process and protect the rights of the citizens related to this public asset. Therefore, I think that the French government is doing the right thing by getting actively involved in the process of digitizing the books.
Background Article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
s477986
I definitely see the benefits of the Google book scanning project. It gives an opportunity to access information any time and any place, furthermore, it allows for the access of the books that are rare (or in one exemplar) to large public. As well as, electronic text allows for search of keywords and references, which is very useful tool. However, the question still remains whether it should be for-profit organization that keeps the electronic databases of our common knowledge, especially, Google which is currently already controlling such a large flow of information.
I do think that instead of commercial organization it should be done by such entities as libraries that could develop international organization to manage this process.
I agree with both the author and Kitija that these digitalized books should not be kept with a profit company. Google is a large company which has many services, which are very handy, but at the other hand Google collects large amounts of data of every user leading to problematic privacy issues. While that is another subject, it has a clear connection with this topic. While these books are largely public available one cannot differ the situation that a profit organization controls the digitalized literature of our world. Something as important as this cannot be let alone to Google so government supervision is required to make it work. Practically I say yes, Google has the knowhow for this type of things, on the other hand it is morally questionable whether Google should have such a large influence in people’s lives.
ANR 137506
s279459
Although I agree with most of the arguments of the writer.I do not agree with the moral hard case the writer has formulated. In a morally hard case a good moral reason speaks in favor of the course and a good moral reason speaks against it. So I would say that the MHC in this example is: Is it morally right for Google to close a legal agreement that allows them to give online access to books, given that it could benefit society at large, but taking into account that it could harm the cultural public asset? In this case the utilitarianism theory can be applied. To achieve overall utility the reason in favor should be chosen. More people can benefit from the online access of a book, this will ensure overall happiness.
s279459
I agree with the writers above. As the first student said we can see the clear benefit of making public digital books in the point of knowledge sharing. It can give the freedom of accessing knowledge. However we can see the moral issues for those cases; first, when Google tries to get profit out of the public asset. Second, when public assets can only be assessed by Google. In those cases I don’t think Google is acting morally for overall happiness. I agree with Richard that it should be legally regulated. And because it is public asset Google should make it for free and tries to provide it to everybody as many as possible. Therefore Google should act morally right by trying to provided to the users as many as possible.
Post a Comment