4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, August 15, 2005
420 MAYNARD STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 STEPHANIE WRIGHT
tothedaily@michigandaily.com Editor in Chief
DONN M. FRESARD
Editorial Page Editor
EDITED AND MANAGED BY
STUDENTS AT THE Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN the majority of the Daily's editorid board. All other pieces do not
SINCE 1890 necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
Keep on scanning,
Google need not delay landmark library project
over copyright concerns
Waiting to exhale
DPS should stop forced breathalyzer tests
stroll through the Hatcher Gradu-
ate Library stacks is enough to
make one realize that there are
thousands of books owned by the Uni-
versity that will never be opened. Authors
devote years to creating 400-page analy-
ses of the ecological significance of the
Boreal Chickadee or the sleeping habits
of late 13th-century Chinese royalty, only
to have their books checked out twice in
the following century. These books, rang-
ing from the obscure to the well-known,
are all important contributions to human
knowledge, but their banishment to dusty
shelves on the floors of the University's
libraries renders them useless to all but the
most dedicated researchers and students.
With this in mind, Google Inc., par-
ent of the popular search engine, began
a project eight months ago to make this
material accessible to everyone. The
Google Print Library Project will digi-
tize the collections of five of the world's
most extensive libraries, including the
University's nearly seven million vol-
umes, and make them available in a
searchable online database. The compa-
ny is collaborating with these libraries to
scan their works, making public-domain
books completely accessible through their
searchable database. For those books still
protected under copyright laws, Google
will allow users to search through them
and view a short excerpt, but the full
text will remain unavailable. Corporate
publishers have argued that these pre-
cautions will not be adequate and have
opposed this project since its inception.
Under pressure and the specter of law-
suits, Google agreed last week to halt the
scanning of copyrighted material until at
least November, giving publishers time
to ask that their work be omitted from
the online library. But Google's current
policy of restricting access to copyright-
ed material is sufficient and within its
legal rights. Corporate publishers who
are pressuring Google to shut down the
project are standing in the way of what
could be a tremendous achievement for
the accessibility of information and the
spread of human knowledge. And by
allowing publishers to opt out of the pro-
gram, Google has needlessly compro-
mised its original mission of eventually
providing a complete searchable database
of all the world's published works.
Google is able to scan copyrighted mate-
rials into its database without permission
from publishers because of the fair-use
doctrine underlying copyright law. That
is, in certain non-profit circumstances
like teaching, research and news report-
ing, copyrighted pieces can be reproduced
without express permission. Because
of fair use, libraries can purchase copy-
righted materials and lend them freely; the
Google project is no more than a library
of immense proportions and accessibility.
Rather than fueling illegal reproductions
or earning a profit off others' work, the
project will preserve and give the public
access to millions of volumes formerly
buried in libraries. Copyright law was
designed to promote creativity and inno-
vation by ensuring that authors reap the
profits from their own work, and the digi-
tal library will uphold these principles.
Google has taken steps to safeguard copy-
righted material by only allowing users to
view limited portions of the text; unlike
in actual libraries and bookstores, readers
on Google Print cannot sit down to lei-
surely read entire copyrighted books free
of charge. Authors and publishers should
recognize that including their works in the
collection would only increase the expo-
sure of their work and enable Google to
build a more complete library.
Especially for academic books, reading
audiences are often limited, and printed
copies few in number. Only well-funded
libraries have the resources to acquire
more specialized works, leaving those
outside the academic community with-
out access. Ancient and out-of-print texts
are even scarcer, virtually unattainable to
those who cannot afford to visit university
libraries. The creation of a comprehensive
online database is the obvious solution to
these problems, giving readers worldwide
the opportunity to access important mate-
rial and allowing researchers to find infor-
mation and references in books that they
would never have otherwise sought out.
With over 100,000 new titles published
in the United States each year, the sheer
number of new books can be overwhelm-
ing, and many limit their selections to
the few books endorsed by Oprah's Book
Club or that appear on the New York
Times best-seller list. A searchable data-
base of millions of volumes will make
the wealth of available literature more
manageable, helping the public to branch
out beyond the Top 40 equivalents of the
literary world. With easier access to older
and less publicized works that may better
match readers' specific interests, the proj-
ect could even encourage reading gener-
ally and lead to increased book sales.
Google's library project is a landmark
in the convergence of information and
technology, and it will provide a great
public service by democratizing informa-
tion and offering a new means of preser-
vation. The vastness of human knowledge
becomes more daunting each day, and this
project promises to organize accumulated
works and greatly multiply the audience
an author can reach. Short-sighted, profit-
minded corporate publishers should not
stand in the way of such a great achieve-
ment. Google should resist the pressures
of critics who threaten to water down
this noble venture and continue scanning
books that are copyrighted as well as
those in the public domain.
Students may not remember their
first steps or their first words, but
many of them, depending on their
state of mind at the time, remember
their first breathalyzer test. For those
whose run-in with the law occurred on
Ann Arbor's sidewalks, chances are
good that the test was given in clear
violation of their constitutional rights.
Breathalyzers have been used for years
as quick, effective methods to deter-
mine blood alcohol levels, but Michi-
gan stands out as the only state with a
law allowing police officers to admin-
ister tests to pedestrians under the age
of 21 without a warrant. The Ameri-
can Civil Liberties Union is now chal-
lenging this law, citing the tests as an
illegal search and violation of privacy.
The Ann Arbor Police Department has
found this law so draconian that they
elect not to exercise the authority given
to them, but all too often, students
walking around on weekend nights are
stopped by the overzealous Depart-
ment of Public Safety and forced to
take a breathalyzer test or face a $100
fine. Regardless of the outcome of the
ACLU's challenge, DPS should heed
the example of its city-run counterpart
and decline to enforce the offending
portion of the drinking law.
In 2003, a local ordinance similar
to the state law was challenged in Bay
City and ruled unconstitutional. Like
the state law, the ordinance violated the
Fourth Amendment as an illegal search
without a warrant. That same standard
should be applied to this law, which
also clearly violates the rights of those
under the age of 21.
The law provides police officers
with another tactic to enforce mis-
guided underage drinking laws. DPS
and the AAPD dole out hundreds of
minor-in-possession charges annually,
but there has been no evidence to sug-
gest that fear of being stopped on the
street truly deters those who want to
drink; stricter policy enforcement has
not been shown to reduce the rates o,
drinking-related violence or alcohol
poisoning. The breathalyzer policy is
effective, however in making students
too afraid to take their friends to the
hospital should they need medical
attention, a consequence that can have
dangerous ramifications.
DPS has continued to force students
to submit to breathalyzers in their
impossible dream to banish underage
drinking from campus. Although DPS
was designed to promote public safety,
it instead disproportionately focuses its
energies toward chasing down pedestri-
ans on Friday nights. Allocating these
resources toward preventing crimes of
actual significance and with identifi-
able victims, like burglary and sexual
assault, would be more effective and
would promote a safer campus envi-
ronment.
People under the age of 21 should be
afforded the same rights as older mem-
bers of society and not forced to endure
unconstitutional searches, even if they
show the audacity to walk outside at
night. DPS should respect students'
rights by following the lead of AAPD
and refraining from issuing citations to
those who refuse consent to breatha-
lyzer tests.
The thumbs have it
Cristeta }
Comerford
Keith
Butler n
Social
Security
By hiring Comerford as the White House's
first female head chef, the Bushes have sent
a strong signal to all Americans that a wom-
an's place really is in the kitchen.
The Republican vying for Sen. Debbie Stabe-
now (D-Mich.)'s Senate seat can't make up
his mind on whether he supports the Michi-
gan Civil Rights Initiative, which has been
promoted by Ward Connerly since 2003. With
that sort of quick decision-making, he would
fit in well on Capitol Hill.
The favorite child of the New Deal welfare
state celebrated its 70th birthday Sunday.
Here's to another 70 years.