Kevin Drum picks up on Washington Post contrasting pro and con op-ed pieces about Google Print Library, the project where Google plans to scan copyrighted works and make the results available as part of a massive search engine. I pissed on this third rail last month and, in general, think that people still don't get it.

Drum adds to that perception by trying to summarize the problem as being one of "fair use" yet again:

Conversely, Nick Taylor, president of the Authors Guild, opposes Google's project as an infringement of copyright, suggesting that when Google made a unilateral decision about what counts as fair use and what doesn't, it set itself up as "the arbiter of a legal concept it has no right to interpret."

[…] Google's restriction of search results to small snippets demonstrates considerable sensitivity to the rights of the original authors. As a matter of public policy, it seems like a no-brainer that something like this should not only be legal, but positively encouraged.

On the other hand, it's true that this isn't a use that authors had in mind when they originally published their books. And as with other database-driven collections, there's a big difference between an author excerpting one book for the purpose of illustration or criticism and a huge corporation excerpting millions — and making money off it.

This is so off the mark that I literally can't understand why people are wasting time debating it on Political Animal. Fair use allows me to use snippets from another book in my own work, whether my work is for profit or not. The courts apply a four-part test when determining fair use, but even if I published an entire book composed of nothing but three-sentence snippets from other copyrighted works, it would probably still be fair use - it would not be a substantial portion of the excerpted work, and it would likely not affect the market at all for the copyrighted work.

In fact, that fourth test - "the effect of the [allegedly fair] use upon the potential market for or value of the [excerpted] copyrighted work" - would likely make any results returned by Google Print expressly fair work. Everyone seems to be admitting that having these search results available would drive demand for the actual books. I tend to agree, unless we're talking about a book of quotations or something like that, but the Web may make those obsolete soon anyway.

So, once again, for the slow-witted out there, let's review:

The problem is not that Google wants to return three-sentence excerpts from copyrighted works.

The problem is that Google is demanding the right to have a free (unpaid and unlicensed) and full copy of every copyrighted book so it can return those results.

Legal use of an illegally copied book does not make the copy legal, any more than legal use of a stolen car (or even good use, like rushing a wounded person to a hospital) excuses the fact that you stole the damn car.

Any author or publisher who wants to send Google Print a free copy of their books so they can be included in Google Print, I say, "Good for you." More power to them. It's a smart move, IMHO. If they choose not to do that, and Google chooses not to purchase or license the books, then the books can't go into the database. Period.

This is the only copyright issue involved, as far as I'm concerned. "Copyright" is the right to determine who copies your work, and no one - not Google, not the President, not the UN, not the Pope himself - gets a free copy of your work without your permission. The librarian at the University of Michigan doesn't get to change that, any more than the president of the Author's Guild gets to change "fair use."

And yet, somehow I think the Googlemaniacs are going to try to make my life miserable again for daring to suggest that people who create words for a living have, oh, I dunno, the right to make Google pay the same price for a copy of it as anyone else. So here we go again.