I'm not going to address Tim Wu's analogy because while interesting to me as a cartography buff, I'm more concerned about real-world issues surrounding Google Print. I've been reading the press accounts the last two days on the suit against Google filed Wednesday by several members of the American Association of Publishers -- The McGraw-Hill Companies, Pearson Education, Penguin Group (USA), Simon & Schuster and John Wiley & Sons. The depth of the reporting varied -- the normally solid TechDaily neglected entirely to mention that the suit arose when Google declined to adopt the AAP's proposal to use ISBN numbers to determine to what extent Google should seek permission when copying entire books. Perhaps the best article was a news analysis in BusinessWeek Online.

Last month in this space Solveig had this conclusion: "Bottom line, as I see it, the authors are in the right here, but Google ought to be able to negotiate reasonable terms, and gladly--if the service they are planning to provide has enormous potential value, why not pass on some to the authors? Everyone would win." I agree. But Google feels it is absolutely within fair use and sees no need to negotiate terms, reasonable or otherwise. Thus I find myself liking their program but not their approach to copyright.

The AAP wanted Google to use ISBN numbers -- in use since 1967 -- to identify books under copyright and request permission to scan them. BW reports that AAP would have had a more relaxed perspective for books that were out of print and lacking ISBN numbers. Google declined. From a point of principle, that makes sense -- if you feel you're in the right under fair use and don't need to ask permission for any book, you're not going to agree to ask with some. But here's what AAP had to say in their release on the suit:

Noting the existence of new online search initiatives that respect the rights of creators, such as the "Open Content Alliance" involving Yahoo, Hewlett-Packard, Adobe and the Internet Archive, Mrs. Schroeder said: "If Google can scan every book in the English language, surely they can utilize ISBNs. By rejecting the reasonable ISBN solution, Google left our members no choice but to file this suit."

The fact that others take a different approach to fair use than Google can't help Google.

One note I've sounded on this topic with some frequency is that I actually trust Google here. I think they mean well, I think they will make an effort to keep their digital archived copies secure (although I seriously doubt they would accept legal liability if one of their copies got out on the wider Internet), and I think their service will help more authors than it will hurt. I wish Google had some concern for the implications of their shift of copyright to an opt-out system, because there are plenty of bad actors out there who could build poisonous business models on that premise. Still, it doesn't serve Google's shareholders to worry about what other companies might do.

On the issue of the service benefiting authors, I see it this way. I heard that a lot about P2P, that unauthorized file sharing helped artists by giving them greater exposure. I never bought that, but I do think it makes absolute sense for musical artists to make their songs available on legitimate online sites. The future of music isn't on physical media. I believe the two remaining Beatles could add to their fortunes if they licensed their magnificent works to iTunes, Napster and the like. They choose not to, which is silly, because their likely audience is old enough to respect copyright and would be willing to pay for their music, and would have the resources to do so. But I will defend their right to be shortsighted and not benefit from online music sales, instead forfeiting that market to illicit copies being traded on LimeWire and eDonkey. I feel the same about Google Print. It would behoove most publishing houses -- as well as those authors fortunate enough to own rights to their own books -- to participate in this new service, if it is in fact as described. But under copyright law, I will defend their right to be a stick-in-the-mud and stay on the sidelines. No for-profit outfit should have the right to drag them into the game against their will.