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.