French publishing giants cave in to Google's great copyright heist

Will no one stand up to Google? French publishers used to be in the vanguard of opposition to the internet giant's mass digitisation programme, the so-called Google Print Initiative (GPI). Not any more. Last week, Hachette, France's biggest publisher, made an agreement with Google to scan thousands of out-of-print French titles for Google's online library.

The devil, of course, is in the detail. Hachette maintained that the deal broke a contractual deadlock "in an honourable and positive way", while Hachette retains control over which titles Google would be allowed to scan. Well, they would, wouldn't they? On the face of it, Google has pulled off yet another copyright heist under the skull and crossbones of "free content", putting yet more pressure on all the remaining hold-outs in the library world.

Google (motto: "Do No Evil") insist that they are working for the good of the reader, liberating otherwise moribund texts from the darkness and isolation of library shelves. That's been its consistent position, but I just don't buy it, long-term. Never mind the ongoing litigation about the proper remuneration of copyright holders (aka authors), it is inconceivable that, having made this investment and undertaken this extraordinary programme (for that's what it is), Google will not ultimately seek to extract some commercial advantage. That day has not yet come, but as the ebook revolution gathers momentum in the USA and worldwide, I predict that Google will find a way of "revisiting" the noble, altruistic stance of the GPI.

In that context, the Hachette move is part of a trend. Even Google's adversaries are now seeking ways to co-opt the better aspects of its initiative. As I wrote two weeks ago, Robert Darnton of Harvard now advocates a national digital library, partly inspired by Google's example.

To such collaborative gestures, there remains some notable opposition. For instance, the New Zealand literary community has always been fiercely protective of its rights. The latest edition of the New York Review of Books has a very sensible letter from the president of the NZ Society of Authors who both endorses the idea of a national digital library and identifies "the elephant in the room", ie the Great Copyright Question. This of course, goes to the heart of Google.

Robert Darnton's response, in the same issue, is intriguing. No one, I think, has looked harder at this issue, or addressed it with such a fine sense of historical precedent and nuance. Basically, what Darnton now advocates is the incremental construction of a US digital library in which each separate copyright category (and there are several) would be accommodated by special agreements between interested parties. In stark contrast to the senior executives of Google who contrive to seem both arrogant and secretive, Darnton now says that "the Digital Public Library of America", a model for libraries the world over, should emerge from "a broad debate on a national scale" and that "the people themselves should have a voice in its design".

By appropriating some of Google's consumerist clothes and wrapping himself in the cloak of populist consensus, Darnton may have found a way to explore the complex and fundamental issue raised by digital books that returns it to the public domain. I say that this can't come a minute too soon.