Publisher Realizes Google Books Isn't Evil, But Quite Beneficial

from the good-for-them dept

Tue, Apr 6th 2010 9:32am — Mike Masnick

From the beginning, we've been confused why book publishers were so against Google's Book search. When you realize that it's really a giant (and much, much, much better) card catalog that helps people find and discover more books, it's only a short leap to realize that it should help publishers more than hurt them. And, indeed, a few empirical studies have found that embracing Google Books has helped sales. But, for many publishers this has, apparently, been tough to understand. Thankfully, it looks like some are coming around. Gerd Leonhard points us to a blog post by the CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers, Michael Hyatt, where he explains why authors, agents, and publishers should embrace Google Book search.

It was based on someone from Google visiting the company and explaining Google Books. While it's a little depressing that publishers have to wait for a person from Google to show up in person to explain what's been discussed at length for years by Google and many, many others, it's great to see that it worked in this case. Hyatt admits that he went into the meeting quite skeptical, but came out convinced. He notes that the two reasons given by publishers and authors against Google Books (people can just read the books online instead of buy them, or they can print them out) are simply not true. From the meeting he realized four key points (all of which Google made clear when all this launched, but many have simply ignored the facts):

Google Book Search creates greater book awareness.
The biggest problem authors face today is obscurity not piracy.
Most people have no desire to read a book on their computer.
Google only allows users to preview 20 percent of a book’s content.

Hyatt concludes with a plea to others to embrace Google Book search, noting that by embracing it, the publishing industry will realize that their content becomes "more relevant than ever." Kudos to Hyatt for changing his mind and explaining his reasons.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: books, google books, publishers
Companies: google

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TSO, 6 Apr 2010 @ 9:13am

They also need to realize...
Admittedly, I prefer to read books on the computer, and I hate the idea of paying beforehand. BUT, it does not mean I'm a freeloader: if I consider the book good, I certainly would be looking to compensate the author a) by tipping (I DO NOT WANT DEAD TREES IN MY HOME, so buying a physical book is not an option) and b) by promoting it to friends and colleagues.

Come on, how hard it is to set up a tip jar for the book on the publisher's webpage? I mean, by all means sell books and stuff but ALSO set a tip jar dammit! It's cheap if not free!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 9:49am
  
  Re: They also need to realize...
  "I DO NOT WANT DEAD TREES IN MY HOME"
  
  Question - is your house a wood frame house?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TSO, 6 Apr 2010 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re: They also need to realize...
    > Question - is your house a wood frame house?
    
    Last time I checked, it's a concrete building. :-b
    
    Not everybody in the world (or even in US) lives in a personal clamshell, thank you very much. :-b
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - mike42 (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 10:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: They also need to realize...
      Does it have drywall? Paneling? interior walls?
      You got wood.
      
      PS WTF is a personal clamshell?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TSO, 6 Apr 2010 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They also need to realize...
        Yes I do, in the form of particle board that makes up my furniture. Next question?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        wastedtime (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 8:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They also need to realize...
        Particle board.... hmm. Just a few gases there floating around in your virtuous house.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RPM, 7 Apr 2010 @ 7:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They also need to realize...
        Ok, maybe try imagining a personal above-ground cave...as opposed to the building with multiple family living quarters
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Louis (profile), 2 May 2010 @ 11:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They also need to realize...
        In my condo, the walls are concrete. I do have drywall, but the studs are metal. Less risk of fire that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - China, 6 Apr 2010 @ 3:21pm
    
    Re: Re: They also need to realize...
    Hahahaha. He gotcha there, eh.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RPM, 7 Apr 2010 @ 7:33am
    
    Re: Re: They also need to realize...
    Nope...bricks and cement. You?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 10:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: They also need to realize...
      Lollipops and rainbows!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- V (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: They also need to realize...
  Do you have kitchen cabinets? Bathroom cabinets? What about the framing around your sink and counter tops? Do you receive ZERO mail...last time I checked all mail that ships is made of dead trees. What about your shampoo and detergents, a lot of that stuff comes from organic compounds, most likely small trees or GASP dead plants.
  
  I have to say your dead tree statement has to be the most retarded comment and belief on the internet...
  
  /facepalm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 2:27pm
    
    Re: Re: They also need to realize...
    Maybe try a little contextual reading and realize he is talking about "dead tree editions" of books.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RPM, 7 Apr 2010 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re: They also need to realize...
    1) Do you have kitchen cabinets? Nope, I have a built-in pantry made from cement.
    2) Bathroom cabinets? See above
    3) What about the framing around your sink and counter tops? Nope, why would someone need "framing"?
    4)Do you receive ZERO mail - Correct, no dead tree mail. If someone has something to say to me, they use phone, email or in person (that includes the guberment). However, I can't help the spam mail that does come in, but I burn that to ashes as soon as I can.
    5) What about your shampoo and detergents - I'm one with nature and don't use shampoo or detergents. I take a bath in the pond on my property using plain water. I assume the detergent is for clothes? If so, I don't own clothes, I'm a nudist.
    
    I have to say your dead tree statement has to be the most retarded comment and belief on the internet...[and I have to say that your world-view is very limited to your concept of "normal" and "right way to do things" for some reason you can't imagine people living differently than you]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 1:55pm
  
  Re: They also need to realize...
  Professionals shouldn't need tip jars or charity.
  
  Your insinuation that you would pay your share if only they would do this or that is nothing but a self-rationalizing ruse to help yet another freeloader sleep at night.
  
  Why not take your own advice and give away whatever service or product you make and put up a tip jar for compensation? I would be interested (amused) in seeing how long you last with this model.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 9:39am

news flash: new fangled motorized buggy very good for delivering buggy whips. film at 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  Hehe... funny, though not really a good analogy in this instance I don't think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 9:57am

20 percent
that 20% part is a problem too. What if you want to read an entire book? You can't.

So yes, obscurity issues? taken care of. Preservation of info? Not so much.

That 20% seems to apply to public domain stuff when google lists it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jupiter (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 10:12am

Google Books - the world's biggest library
I just wrote an article for a magazine about a playwright, and because of a tight deadline I couldn't scrounge around libraries for research material and hunt through book indexes hoping to find something relevant. I did all my research with Google Books, which thanks to being searchable finding exactly what I wanted was really easy.

Granted, I didn't buy any of the books in question, but I wasn't going to buy any books anyway just to write an article. However, I did reference all the books I quoted from, giving those books some visibility and perhaps making a sale to someone that reads the article.

The sad part was how few of the books I could actually read on Google Books. Most were snippet view (useless) or nothing at all. The books I couldn't access were basically non-existent to me. That's what the publishers need to figure out. The day will come where if a book isn't readable online, it may as well not be published. Google books is good for books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RPM, 7 Apr 2010 @ 7:53am
  
  Re: Google Books - the world's biggest library
  You're making the assumption that the publisher's want their books' existence acknowledged by you. Last I heard they want to make MONEY and don't need freeloaders like you finding their books, reading them and then not paying for them. You're the perfect example of what they are fighting against.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comboman (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 10:36am

Print them out?!?
He notes that the two reasons given by publishers and authors against Google Books (people can just read the books online instead of buy them, or they can print them out) are simply not true.
Even if it were true, what idiot would print out an ebook? That's like downloading an MP3 and copying it to cassette.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RPM, 7 Apr 2010 @ 7:56am
  
  Re: Print them out?!?
  Not necessarily....I know people who have printed out books to read and reference them when they are out of Internet range. If it was just fiction or novels you are probably right, but mechanical manuals and such are harder to use if they are not accessible in the field.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 10:43am

RE: Google Books - the world's biggest library
"I just wrote an article for a magazine about a playwright, and because of a tight deadline I couldn't scrounge around libraries for research material and hunt through book indexes hoping to find something relevant."

So you wrote an article with all the material you could google in a limited amount of time? sounds like a publication with the highest of standards.

I hope you referenced the links and not the books, lest you be one of the thousands to discover something scanned in or linked incorrectly. http://chronicle.com/article/Googles-Book-Search-A/48245/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kazi, 6 Apr 2010 @ 11:59am
  
  Re: RE: Google Books - the world's biggest library
  I'm sure a moron in a hurry knows the difference between metadata and the actual text of a book.
  
  Google Books scans a copy of 'the' book. It doesn't really reformat the text nor change it's publication date. Therefore, the book, if when scanned, had it's original publication page data will have that original publication page data.
  
  It's like you're telling people that the actual manuscript of a book has less errors than the actual book. Therefore, people should use the manuscript. Sort of pointless. Just like the manuscript makes it possible to publish millions of books the published millions of books make it possible for digital copies of that same material.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gojomo (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 12:18pm

Google Books Search vs. Google Books Settlement
Headline/copy should distinguish between Google Books Search and the Google Books Settlement.

Search is an unalloyed good. The Settlement, which uses the class-action process to grant the market leader a de facto monopoly on scanning certain kinds of books, doesn't automatically deserve the same praise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MikeS (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 12:44pm

Next thing you know, publishers will go after Libraries because everyone can borrow the books for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re:
  no because the library cant give them same book to a million people at the same time. physical limitations make the losses from a lending library tolerable. if each person takes the book for a week, only maybe 50 people per year can borrow it. system is self limiting. google is not at all limiting. different no?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 4:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, let's all go back to the dark ages. Authors were much safer then. Or perhaps we can all become Amish.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 4:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    An online searchable resource collecting every book ever printed? What a stupid idea. I don't think this "Google" company is going to go very far by stealing from all those poor authors.
    
    Sorry, I've been in a coma for the past decade but I know I'm right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RPM, 7 Apr 2010 @ 8:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm sorry...did you say you were in a coma? or still in a coma....where you think your fantasy is real?
      
      The issue at hand isn't the searchable resource part...it's the displaying the full text of the resource. If Google had simply re-created the catalog system on their site and incorporated all magazines and books there wouldn't be an issue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 3:19pm

It all depends upon the book. I don't want to read fiction on my computer, but I love to get the 10% of technical books that I need for free. I would guess that publishers like O'Reilly should hate Google Books because I rarely read more than 5% of their books.

But that's why I joined their Safari program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dancingumbrella (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 3:33pm

Sounds like a win win situation to me
So, if someone can find the info they need in the 20% of the book that Google Book Search allows to be seen, then they can use that information for free. But, if they don't find exactly what they need but think they might find it in that particular book, more people are apt to go out and pay money for a copy of the book because more people now know of its availability? Due to Google Book Search!
How much does GBS get?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RPM, 7 Apr 2010 @ 8:13am
  
  Re: Sounds like a win win situation to me
  I've waded through Google Book Search and from what I understand, it is possible to read the entire book, not just the 20%. Here's how you do it.....you simply keep searching the book for keywords that will make the remaining 80% visible. So you can type in "Chapter 1" and chapter one is visible. Type in "Chapter 2" and now chapter two is visible and so on until you've read the entire book....neat, huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 6 Apr 2010 @ 4:03pm

I have to say your dead tree statement has to be the most retarded comment and belief on the internet...
Wow, it must be your first day. Welcome to the internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RPM, 7 Apr 2010 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  LMAO
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maciej (ma-chi), 7 Apr 2010 @ 12:45pm

So who will be the first to start closing stores Barnes & Noble or Borders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]