Forward Thinking.

Navigation: Main page

Author: Miller, Michael J.

Earlier this year, we published a cover story on the significant changes on the horizon as multicore chips go mainstream, Windows Vista ships, Apple moves to Intel, new gaming platforms for both Xbox and PlayStation emerge, new phone platforms evolve, and open-source software projects take off. (See "The Big Shakeup," August 9, 2005; go.pcmag.com/bigshakeup.) But what about the year just ending? When it came time to select the best products of 2005 for this issue's cover story (from the over 1,300 that we reviewed), we saw some worthy improvements in many products.

Dual-core machines really do speed up everyday tasks, such as running a virus scan in the background while checking your e-mail. We also saw a number of great new applications, especially some very cool Web-based services. Wide-area networking gained ground in a limited way. And we saw vast improvements in digital cameras, music players, printers, phones, and displays.

The one exception was security, with the bad guys gaining ground faster than the industry could keep up. We hope to see some real breakthroughs in security technologies next year.

We probably won't remember 2005 as a year of really great changes in computing, but it has set the stage for a lot of big things to come.

The Internet makes a lot of information available to everyone, but plenty of information remains out of reach. Wouldn't it be great if everything were there, all easily accessible via a simple Google search?

That's the question that Google is raising with its plan to scan and digitize thousands of books and make them searchable online. This is a great idea, with some caveats. The more closely I look at the issue, the less I'm convinced that this is a simple problem with a simple answer.

Google is launching its Print Library Project with the best of intentions â€" to make more of the world's knowledge accessible to more people. (See print.google.com.) Google cofounder Sergey Brin says it's "really great for the world." And in many respects, it is. But it raises many of the same questions that arose during the debates over Napster and other file-sharing services: If everything is freely available over the Net, what happens to the rights of the people who created the content?

Google plans to scan the libraries of the New York Public Library, Harvard, Oxford, the University of Michigan, and Stanford University and place it all online, where it can be easily searched. You would be able to see in its entirety older material not covered under copyright, but only a small portion of any copyrighted material.

The goal is laudable, but I see a big question mark. Google has said it will include books that are covered by copyright, unless the copyright holders specifically opt out. Representatives of the authors and publishers, notably the American Association of Publishers and the Authors Guild, have filed suit to stop Google from including any copyrighted book unless the copyright holder has agreed to opt in. In response, Google stopped scanning for a while but started up again in November, scanning out-of-print books.

Meanwhile, Yahoo!, MSN, and others have formed the Open Content Alliance (OCA). Its goals are similar to those of Google Print, but the program is different in that the OCA waits for publishers to opt in. Amazon, which launched its Search Inside the Book feature two years ago, also has publishers' permission. And in November, it announced Amazon Pages, which offers online access to entire books or specific chapters for a few cents per page.

I believe that publisher participation is important and that it will lead to more book sales. Since Google Print isn't offering entire books, it really seems like a publisher-friendly service rather than a Napster for books. The troubling aspect is that Google is moving forward without publishers' permission. Some publishers are legitimately concerned that this could hurt their sales.

The question will turn on whether Google's plans are covered by the fair use exception in the copyright law, which lets people quote small parts of a work for criticism or research, news reporting, or teaching. Google will have to make a copy of the full contents of the book in order to index it. That seems questionable under copyright law and accepted practice.

Whatever the decision, the project is likely to continue, though perhaps only with books for which Google gets permission. The project cuts to the heart of what kinds of information should be accessible in the Internet era. Right now, Google â€" like virtually every other search engine â€" makes an index of pages on the Web. In the process, it creates copies of pages without getting permission from the copyright holders.

If a court rules that Google must get permission from copyright holders to copy books online, it may not be long before there is a ruling that Google can index only Web sites for which it has permission from the publishers. That, in turn, would destroy the whole concept of Web search as we know it. This issue is too important to come down to a court's reading of a vague law.

I'd rather see Congress rework the copyright legislation to make clear that indexing' with the goal of offering a small amount of text online is allowed under the fair use doctrine in most cases. One caveat should be that publishers can actively withhold their material for a limited amount of time. While Congress is already reexamining this law, I would like to see the copyright period rolled back to the shorter period it was limited to until a few years ago. And how about a fair use exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, so that individuals can do what they want with media they purchase, as long as it's for personal use only and not redistributed? (See Bill Machrone's column, page 69.)

In the Internet era, the rights of copyright holders and Web services are likely to collide, and it's important to keep in mind our rights as citizens wanting information. In the long run, I think Google Print will be a win both for authors and consumers.

One of the big trends in the software industry today is Web applications, exemplified by Salesforce.com, Yahoo! Mail, and Google Maps. These are often referred to as AJAX applications (for the programming technique known as Asynchronous JavaScript and XML).

Since Microsoft Office is the embodiment of traditional applications that run on desktops and notebooks, I found Microsoft's announcement last month of its new Windows Live and Office Live strategy fascinating. Microsoft is really endorsing the concept of Web applications. The initial offerings aren't thrilling. Windows Live connects the company's Kahuna Web mail application with its search, mapping, and security products. And Office Live is basically an update of the old bCentral site for small businesses, although Microsoft wants to extend that with more communication and collaboration features. Both of these services will likely be sold by subscription, through an ad-supported service, or through some combination of both of those.

I'm interested to see what the real products will look like once this service gets going. Of course, Microsoft hasn't abandoned the desktop. Office 12 is in the works, and it looks to be the biggest change in a decade. We hope to have a lot more information â€" including a hands-on preview â€" next issue.

I'm curious, though, to see how both online and off-line applications will work together. Regardless of the programming model, I just want more stable applications that will let me work and communicate more effectively.

If everything is freely available over the Net, what happens to the rights of the people who created the content?

MORE ON THE WEB: Join us online and make your voice heard. Talk back to Michael J. Miller in our opinions section, go.pcmag.com/miller.

~~~~~~~~

By Michael J. Miller