Paul - not only do I have backup of material that exists in the WayBackMachine, I have backups of content that predates the WayBackMachine itself. I also have backup of content that was posted in walled garden areas and has since rolled off their servers. Stuff that was published one place and that place is no longer in business or on the web. In internet publishing it is not uncommon for those of us who have been around awhile to ‘outlive’ the publishers. Stuff that Google or any other search engine couldn’t get to at the time it was published on the web, I also possess backups. And beyond that, I have material that has never been published — lots of it. I don’t see Google or the WayBackMachine as my backup provider and I would not suggest that as a viable long term reliable solution for any author/publisher, despite the fact that they are worth billions.

Lastly, the entire dedicated server where this website lives is backed up daily so the most we would ever lose is 24 hours, maybe a couple days if the most recent nightly backup was fubarred.

Anyway, I wrote a much longer, detailed reply to the rest of your commentary, where I shared much, much more of my current feelings about Google Print here: http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060117/2853/

I do thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and encourage you to continue to do so. You made me go hmm.

The last time I visited my public library was Saturday, they are closed today for MLK.

So what if Google is a money grubbing company. What is going to become of the 70% of books that are under someone’s copyright but is not in print? Let Google make a little money on them and at least have a digital copy for someone like me, in a small town in Kansas, to search. The important thing is that the ideas in those books becomes researchable for us out here in flyover country. If the publishers thinks that Google is making money off their work why don’t they create their own search service. Maybe for the same reason they let the book go out of print?

Google is offering the equivalent of robot.txt to let the publishers to opt-out. So the publishers can opt-out of what they are sure that they can make money, current works. The out of print books are only available in very short segments, what would be fair use if I pasted into this comment for example. Odd it is OK if I do it but evil if Google does it? If there was a working property system, like exists for land, then a permission system would make sense. The question is who do you go to for a fifty year old book that was published by a a company that was merged in to another company, that was merged into another …

Let me ask you, do you have a copy of all of the web sites that you have created over the years? The publishers don’t value their out of print work anymore than an a five-year-old web site on the waybackmachine. There is probably not any real money in out of print books. If Google finds a value in them then they should not begrudged for making money on them. Heaven knows the publishers and authors haven’t found a way of making money on them.

I guess our difference boils down to this. You believe that if Google finds a way on making money on searching out of print work they should share it with the author and if they are not willing to do it up front they should be forbidden to try. It is better that the book remains on the shelf never looked at rather than let someone search the text and be exposed to the ideas of the author should Google get twenty-five cents for a click through on an ad beside the search.

I am saying that the free market has spoken on the out of print work, they have little to no value, hence they are out of print. I think that Google should be allowed to try to make money. I am fairly sure that there isn’t any real money in it but if I am wrong I am sure that the publishers will cash in just as much as Google. Maybe some good books could be put back into print? A few less fake memoirs could do no harm. Only short segments will be displayed to me after the search, not the entire work. I will still have to go to library to get the book, maybe libraries still have a purpose after all?

I guess I am a greater believer in the free market than you. Certainly a greater believer in the good of sharing ideas. Create something great, the money will follow. I hope Google gets to try.

The answer is in the $$$ and if Google is making their own cash registers ring, hopefully they will find a way to pay the original creator of the work and the publisher. I think that would be the fairest system. If they could send traffic back to the author, great, and that is one form of payment.

That’s why people don’t mind search engines because they generate traffic back to the creator’s work where they can monetize themselves.

I’m looking at the creator of the work here above anybody else. When we create something we have the right to determine who can use that work. Calling what Google is doing — without permission of the copyright holder — “fair use” seems like an awfully big stretch to me.