Firstly, Google’s idea of digitizing print media is understandable in motivation and laudable in its intentions. Google will take a massive step towards the victory over information discrimination, allowing people to know their rights. It will bring a lot of individuals with their unique store of knowledge to society. Secondly, free access to literature of any kind will preserve the confidentiality of citizens who can search for whatever they want (Whelan, 2019). Bank accounts a purchase wherever it is made, but the process of monitoring citizens online is more complicated. People will feel less anxious, realizing that they have read a book or article as a guest, without entering their details anywhere.
Thirdly, such easy access to literature will allow young people to study any specialties to please their souls. Fourthly, the absence or limitation of copyright allows the dissemination of work or information much faster and among a wider circle of people. If the author understands the usefulness of his (or her) report, its importance, and necessity, he (or she) will be inclined not to claim copyright.
One of the most important disadvantages of Google’s idea is the lack of the ability to receive payment from authors for their intellectual work. Authors rightly want to accept payment for the placement and circulation of their literature, seeing the demand in society (Obradovich, 2016). An additional slight disadvantage here is the authors’ absence of a clear understanding of the request in the community for the ideas expressed. The Internet will blur a lot of opinions, and it may be difficult for the author to understand the general feedback on the views expressed. In addition, thoughtless dissemination of literature, primarily scientific or related to humanitarian studies or art, makes it easier for plagiarists to work and increases the risk of plagiarism in general (Nagaraj, 2018). People can get the impression that, in reality, the written work belongs to everyone so that no one will claim the right to it.
Third, the availability of literature will allow people to use it for their purposes related to the imposition of ideas and propaganda. The author must decide where to exhibit the work and position the opinions expressed there. Readers can also note that the distribution of literature can increase profanity in each piece separately when inexperienced readers or readers without education will try to comment and argue with the author.
References
Nagaraj, A. (2018). Does copyright affect reuse? Evidence from Google Books and Wikipedia. Management Science, 64(7), 3091-3107.
Obradovich, D. C. (2016). Garcia v. Google: Authorship in copyright. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 31, 785-813.
Whelan, G. (2019). Born political: A dispositive analysis of Google and copyright. Business & Society, 58(1), 42-73.