快速閱讀
來自英國衛(wèi)報(bào) The Guardian
Google's plan for world's biggest online library: philanthropy or act of piracy?
[1] Google has already scanned 10 million books in its bid to digitise the contents of the world's major libraries, but a copyright battle now threatens the project, with Amazon and Microsoft joining authors and publishers opposed to the scheme.
[2] In recent years the world's most venerable libraries have played host to some incongruous visitors. In dusty nooks and far-flung stacks, teams of workers dispatched by Google have been beavering away to make digital copies of books. So far, Google has scanned more than 10 million titles from libraries in America and Europe – including half a million volumes held by the Bodleian in Oxford. The exact method it uses is unclear; the company does not allow outsiders to observe the process.
[3] Why is Google undertaking such a venture, so seemingly out-of-kilter with its snazzy, hi-tech image? Why is it even interested in all those out-of-print library books, most of which have been gathering dust on forgotten shelves for decades? 1.The company claims its motives are essentially public-spirited. Its overall mission, after all, is to "organise the world's information", so it would be odd if that information did not include books. Like the Ancient Egyptians who attempted to build a library at Alexandria containing all the known world's scrolls, Google executives talk of constructing a universal online archive, a treasure trove of knowledge that will be freely available – or at least freely searchable – for all.
[4] The company likes to present itself as having lofty, utopian aspirations. "This really isn't about making money" is a mantra. "We are doing this for the good of society." As Santiago de la Mora, head of Google Books for Europe, puts it: "2.By making it possible to search the millions of books that exist today, we hope to expand the frontiers of human knowledge."
[5] Dan Clancy, the chief architect of Google Books, offers an analogy with the invention of the Gutenberg press – Google's book project, he says, will have a similar democratising effect. He talks of people in far-flung parts being able to access knowledge as never before, of search queries leading them to the one, long out-of-print book they need.
[6] And he does seem genuine in his conviction that this is primarily a philanthropic exercise. "Google's core business is search and find, so obviously what helps improve Google's search engine is good for Google," he says. "But we have never built a spreadsheet outlining the financial benefits of this, and I have never had to justify the amount I am spending to the company's founders."
[7] It is easy, talking to Clancy and his colleagues, to be swept along by their missionary zeal. But Google's book-scanning project is proving controversial. Several opponents have recently emerged, ranging from rival tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon to small bodies representing authors and publishers across the world. In broad terms, these opponents have levelled two sets of criticisms at Google.
[8] First, they have questioned whether the primary responsibility for digitally archiving the world's books should be allowed to fall to a commercial company. 3.In a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, Robert Darnton, the head of Harvard University's library, argued that because such books are a common resource – the possession of us all – only public, not-for-profit bodies should be given the power to control them.
[9] The second, related criticism is that Google's scanning of books is actually illegal. This allegation has led to Google becoming mired in a legal battle whose scope and complexity makes the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Bleak House look straightforward.
[10] 4.At its centre, however, is one simple issue: that of copyright. The inconvenient fact about most books, to which Google has arguably paid insufficient attention, is that they are protected by copyright. Copyright laws differ from country to country, but in general protection extends for the duration of an author's life and for a substantial period afterwards, thus allowing the author's heirs to benefit. (In Britain and America, this post-death period is 70 years.) This means, of course, that almost all of the books published in the 20th century are still under copyright – and last century saw more books published than in all previous centuries combined. Of the roughly 40 million books in US libraries, for example, an estimated 32 million are in copyright. Of these, some 27 million are out of print.
[11] Outside the US, Google has made sure only to scan books that are out of copyright and thus in the "public domain" (works such as the Bodleian's first edition of Middlemarch, which anyone can read for free on Google Books Search).
[12] But, within the US, the company has scanned both in-copyright and out-of-copyright works. 5.In its defence, Google points out that it displays only snippets of books that are in copyright – arguing that such displays are "fair use". But critics allege that by making electronic copies of these books without first seeking the permission of copyright holders, Google has committed piracy.
[13] "The key principle of copyright law has always been that works can be copied only once authors have expressly given their permission," says Piers Blofeld, of the Sheil Land literary agency in London. "Google has reversed this – it has simply copied all these works without bothering to ask."
[14] 6.In 2005, the Authors Guild of America, together with a group of US publishers and publishers, launched a class action suit against Google that, after more than two years of wrangling, ended with an announcement last October that Google and the claimants had reached an out-of-court settlement. The full details are staggeringly complicated – the text alone runs to 385 pages – and trying to summarise it is no easy task. "Part of the problem is that it is basically incomprehensible," says Blofeld, one of the settlement's most vocal British critics.
[15] Broadly, the deal provides a mechanism for Google to reimburse authors and publishers whose rights it has breached (including giving them a share of any future revenue it generates from their works). In exchange for this, the rights holders agree not to sue Google in future.
[16] The settlement stipulates that a body known as the Books Rights Registry will represent the interests of US copyright holders. Authors and publishers with a copyright interest in a book scanned by Google who make themselves known to the registry will be entitled to receive a payment – in the region of $60 per book – as compensation.
[17] Additionally, the settlement hands Google the power – but only with the agreement of individual rights holders – to exploit its database of out-of-print books. It can include them in subscription deals sold to libraries or sell them individually under a consumer licence. 7.It is these commercial provisions that are proving the settlement's most controversial aspect.
[18] Critics point out that, by giving Google the right to commercially exploit its database, the settlement paves the way for a subtle shift in the company's role from provider of information to seller. "8.Google's business model has always been to provide information for free, and sell advertising on the basis of the traffic this generates," points out James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School. Now, he says, because of the settlement's provisions, Google could become a significant force in bookselling.
[19] 9.Interest in this aspect of the settlement has focused on "orphan" works, where there is no known copyright holder – these make up an estimated 5% to 10% of the books Google has scanned. Under the settlement, when no rights holders come forward and register their interest in a work, commercial control automatically reverts to Google. Google will be able to display up to 20% of orphan works for free, include them in its subscription deals to libraries and sell them to individual buyers under the consumer licence.
[20] "The deal has in effect handed Google a swath of intellectual copyright. It is a mammoth potential bookselling market," says Blofeld. He adds it is no surprise that Amazon, which currently controls 90% of the digital books market, is becoming worried.
[21] But Dan Clancy of Google dismisses the idea that, by gaining control over out-of-print and orphan works, Google is securing for itself a significant future revenue stream. He points out that out-of-print books represent only a tiny fraction of the books market – between 1% and 2%. "This idea that we are gaining access to a vast market here – I really don't think that is true.
[22] James Gleick, an American science writer and member of the Authors Guild, broadly agrees. He says that, although Google's initial scanning of in-copyright books made him uncomfortable, the settlement itself is a fair deal for authors.
[23] "The thing that needs to be emphasised is that this so-called market over which Google is being given dominance – the market in out-of-print books – doesn't currently exist. That's why they're out of print. In real life, I can't see what the damage is – it's only good."
[24] It is by no means certain that the settlement will be enacted – it is the subject of a fairness hearing in the US courts. But if it is enacted, Google will in effect be off the hook as far as copyright violations in the US are concerned. Many people are seriously concerned by this – and the company is likely to face challenges in other courts around the world.
[25] Over the coming months, we will hear a lot more about the Google settlement and its ramifications. Although it's a subject that may seem obscure and specialised, it concerns one of the biggest issues affecting publishing and, indeed, other creative industries – the control of digital rights.
[26] No one knows the precise use Google will make of the intellectual property it has gained by scanning the world's library books, and the truth, as Gleick points out, is that the company probably doesn't even know itself. 10.But what is certain is that, in some way or another, Google's entrance into digital bookselling will have a significant impact on the book world in years to come.
題目：
1. Google claims its plan for the world’s biggest online library is _____
A. to save out-of-print books in libraries.
B. to serve the interest of the general public
C. to encourage reading around the world
D. to promote its core business of searching
【解析】該題問的是Google所聲稱的自己圖書館計(jì)劃的目的。根據(jù)順序原則該題靠前，同時(shí)注意到第三段開頭連續(xù)并列why，提示第三段很有可能提到原因或目的。用claim定位至第三段第三句，該句motive引出后面Google聲稱的原因是“本質(zhì)上被公眾精神驅(qū)動(dòng)”，三段末更提到是為了所有人的知識(shí)需求。核心名詞public及句意都對(duì)應(yīng)B選項(xiàng)。
2. According to Santiago de la Mora, Google’s book-scanning project will
A. help the broad masses of readers
B. broaden humanity’s intellectual horizons
C. make full use of the power of its search engine
D. revolutionise the entire book industry
【解析】該題問的是Santiago de la Mora對(duì)Google圖書掃面項(xiàng)目的看法。用人名可定位至四段中，之后該人提到Google該項(xiàng)目能expand the frontiers of human knowledge，即拓廣人類知識(shí)的范圍。對(duì)應(yīng)B選項(xiàng)。核心名詞knowledge被改為同義詞intellectual，frontier被同義替換為horizon，動(dòng)詞expand被同義替換為broaden。
3. Opponents of Google Books believe that digitally archiving the world's books should be controlled by_______.
A. the world’s tech giants
B. the world’s leading libraries
C. non-profit organizations
D. multinational companies
【解析】該題問的是反對(duì)Google的人對(duì)數(shù)字知識(shí)控制者的看法。用opponents可定位至第7段前后，control可進(jìn)一步定位至第八段最后Robert Darnton的觀點(diǎn)。該人認(rèn)為只有public, not-for-profit bodies 可以有控制數(shù)字知識(shí)的權(quán)利，對(duì)應(yīng)C選項(xiàng)。Bodies被同義替換為organization。
4. Google has involved itself in a legal battle as it ignored______.
A. the copyright of authors of out-of -print books
B. the interest of traditional sellers
C. the copyright of the books it scanned
D. the differences of in-print and out-of-print books.
【解析】該題問的是Google卷入官司的原因。由legal battle可定位至第9段前后，用之后第10段短首出現(xiàn)的however可進(jìn)一步將重點(diǎn)信息圈定到第10首。該段首句即提到問題的中心是copyright，對(duì)應(yīng)C選項(xiàng)。
5. Google defends its scanning in-copyright books by saying that __________.
A. making electronic copies of books is not a violation of copyright
B. the online display of in-copyright books is not for commercial use
C. it is willing to compensate the copyright holders
D. it displays only a small part of their content
【解析】該題問的是Google自己對(duì)自己涉及侵權(quán)行為的辯護(hù)。用defend可定位至第12段第二句的defence。該句中Google指出自己僅顯示了受版權(quán)保護(hù)圖書的小片段(snippets)。該詞若不認(rèn)識(shí)，也可結(jié)合前面的only猜出其否定名詞的性質(zhì)。對(duì)應(yīng)D選項(xiàng)。Snippets被同義改寫為a small part。
6. What do we learn about the class action suit against Google?
A. It ended in a victory for the Authors Guild of America.
B . It was settled after more than two years of negotiations.
C . It failed to protect the interest of American publishers.
D. It could lead to more out-of-court settlements of such disputes.
【解析】該題問的是關(guān)于針對(duì)Google的class action的相關(guān)信息。用class action可定位至第14段首句。該句提到這個(gè)事件經(jīng)過兩年多的爭論（wrangling），最終以一個(gè)宣言（announcement）實(shí)現(xiàn)庭外和解（out-of-court settlement）。對(duì)應(yīng)B選項(xiàng)，wrangling被同義替換為negotiation。若不認(rèn)識(shí)wrangling，一方面可由該句退出其大致表示“糾結(jié)”的意思，另一方面可由settle, more than two years等關(guān)鍵表達(dá)確定B選項(xiàng)與原文信息的對(duì)應(yīng)關(guān)系。
7. What remained controversial after the class action suit ended?
A. The compensation for copyright holders.
B. The change in Google's business model.
C. Google's further exploitation of its database.
D. The commercial provisions of the settlement.
【解析】該題問的是class action之后的爭議點(diǎn)。用controversial可定位至第17段末句的，該句用強(qiáng)調(diào)句形式強(qiáng)調(diào)是該事件的商業(yè)規(guī)定（commercial provisions）成為最為爭議的一個(gè)方面，原文信息完整原樣對(duì)應(yīng)D選項(xiàng)。
8. While_______, Google makes money by selling advertising.
【解析】該題問的是Google在賣廣告掙錢同時(shí)做的另一件事。用sell advertising可定位至18段中部，該句提到Google的商業(yè)模式一直是免費(fèi)提供信息（provide information for free）, 同時(shí)在這產(chǎn)生的訪問流量（traffic）的基礎(chǔ)之上賣廣告掙錢。可知除了賣廣告之外，Google更基本的服務(wù)時(shí)免費(fèi)提供信息。由于空前是while，空中應(yīng)填充動(dòng)名詞形式providing information for free。
9. Books whose copyright holders are not known are called_______.
【解析】該題問的是版權(quán)擁有者不明的書籍的別稱。由copyright holder not known可定位至第19段首句，該句用破折號(hào)將"orphan" works解釋為沒有已知版權(quán)擁有者的書籍作品（there is no known copyright holder）。可知答案即填入orphan works。
10. Google’s entrance into digital bookselling will tremendously _______ in the future.
【解析】該句問到的是Google進(jìn)入數(shù)字圖書界后未來的相關(guān)情況。由該句說法以及digital bookselling可定位至全文末句。該句用轉(zhuǎn)折強(qiáng)Google進(jìn)入數(shù)字圖書界會(huì)對(duì)未來的圖書世界有很大影響（will have a significant impact on the book world in years to come）。由于題干缺少動(dòng)詞成分，因此要由原文同義改寫為動(dòng)詞表達(dá)，填入influence the book world。只需將名詞impact改為同義動(dòng)詞influence，名詞表達(dá)book world原樣保留。原文中significant等于題干中的tremendous，in years to come等于題干中的in the future，都不用再抄入。
