While I can see where both sides are coming from in this case, I believe it is important to consider the time at which this was occurring. The â€œbattleâ€ of Googleâ€™s â€œfair use lawâ€ ended in 2013, a time in which the internet was nowhere near the level to which it is at today. So, in this case, I think it is justifiable for the authors not to see the potential compensation in their work, as they were probably unaware as to the magnitude that the internet would soon have. While Googleâ€™s digitization of the books upon their own authority breached levels of infringement rights, it certainly posed a â€œfree advertisementâ€ for the authors, which would have given them indirect compensation. As a college student, I am constantly using Google as a resource for different papers and projects. If I stumbled upon a reliable, credible source on Google that only provided me limited information, I would do everything in my power to obtain the book, which could ultimately involve a cost. I think many college students have this mindset, especially those born in the technological age. While I do think Google failed to gain consent from the authors, the authors also failed to see how they would benefit from the situation simply due to the timing of the case.
About this Blog"Ethics in the News" provides a forum for students to compare and comment on media ethics reporting from various news sources. It seeks to critically evaluate events and their coverage as it explores ethical issues and concepts.