• by dave.b , Max Kalehoff , November 3, 2005

The Google Library Project--aimed at making the collections of five major libraries searchable online--has received tremendous publicity as a result of recent lawsuits filed by the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild. Among the concerns are "massive copyright infringement" and whether Google needs to ask for publishers' and authors' permission before scanning books, and whether it is satisfactory to permit these groups to opt out.

Setting the legal details aside, people in favor of Google Library have largely been singing the tune of "democratized book publishing." Consider the articulate argument of Tim O'Reilly--a publisher and co-producer of the Web 2.0 conference, and a member of Google Print's publisher advisory board --in a recent New York Times editorial:

"Google promises an alternative to the obscurity imposed on most books. It makes that great corpus of less-than-bestsellers accessible to all. By pointing to a huge body of print works online, Google will offer a way to promote books that publishers have thrown away, creating an opportunity for readers to track them down and buy them... In one bold stroke, Google will give new value to millions of orphaned works."

Presuming the legal terrain goes in Google's favor and the flag of book-publishing democracy flies, let's consider what this might mean for the publishing industry.

Search and print on demand spawn long tail. Without a doubt, a searchable index of the text within the world's books would make more information and knowledge accessible to, and discoverable by, more people. But digitized, searchable titles are far from replacing physical books.

Fortunately, thanks to recent print-on-demand book-publishing technologies that make very short-run book printing economical, no searchable title would ever have to be out of print. Publishing economies and risk no longer need to be dictated by the manufacturing process--a system that favors mass-market bestsellers. The long tail would emerge, and authors and book seekers would no longer be stymied by the arcane rules of a system which in many regards hasn't changed over the past several hundred years. To be sure, Google would not be the only search engine racing to index titles.

While the potential of the long tail would benefit many--especially lesser-known authors and smaller niche publishers--it is today's publishing titans that could have the most to lose. While the phenomenon of mass-market bestsellers (like blockbuster movies, albums or sporting events) supported by deep pockets will never go away, it is likely big publishers will feel consequential pain similar to that of other traditional bastions of media which already have been severely impacted by digital technologies, consumer choice and fragmentation.

A great analogy to describe the potential impact of the long tail in book search is to consider the rapid rise of consumer-created content online--including blogs, message boards, ratings sites and other forms of social media. These platforms are becoming incredibly influential, not just because of their sheer popularity, and compelling content, but because they represent a massively growing share of online content relative to all other--such as corporate, commercial, editorial and government content. These more niche social media tend to place very prominently in search engines, and therefore can achieve otherwise disproportionate exposure. Anyone responsible for the reputation of a big corporate brand is often kept up at night by that fact--the little guy's voice is being heard like never before, loud and clear.

Conclusion: Power Structures Shift. There is a possibility that Internet search will become the gateway to book researching and purchasing, and book content will become part of the total search index. In such a world, niche titles and authors would suddenly become discoverable and compete on an equal playing field with the more mass-market elite. Google Print and Google Library would not replace books, but enhance and democratize demand and access for more books. In other words, the big guys would no longer dominate the entire soap box, and the power structures would shift.

The book-publishing industry aside, this case could have aftershocks. Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School, recently told the Wall Street Journal: "The consequences of a loss for Google are enormous...If the publishers were to actually prevail in this lawsuit, I think it would be essentially impossible to maintain a search engine."

I hope not!