Op-Ed: Christian Science Monitor; Is Google playing by the book?:
The search giant is on its way to becoming the world's digital library, but a private monopoly raises questions.:
"The idea of digitizing the world's written record and making it freely available to everyone is exhilarating. The ability of a student in Alabama or Albania to have access to the contents of the world's libraries online at their fingertips, for example, is a powerful concept and just one of the ways a free and open Web can lift humanity.
But history shows that when a company – even one with talent and good intentions – acts like a monopoly, it is subject to abuses. Despite the potentially monumental effects of this settlement, it has had little public scrutiny. Yet it needs a rigorous examination.
If it stands, the agreement must include long-term safeguards that allow public access to the full collection at reasonable cost, maintain the rights of copyright holders, and ensure the necessary privacy of those who use the service."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0807/p08s01-comv.html
Showing posts with label Google Book Search settlement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google Book Search settlement. Show all posts
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
Library Organizations Urge DoJ To Take Proactive Role in Google Book Search Settlement; Library Journal, 8/6/09
Norman Oder via Library Journal; Library Organizations Urge DoJ To Take Proactive Role in Google Book Search Settlement:
Groups express concerns about pricing, composition of Book Rights Registry:
"Letter follows up on May meeting.
DoJ should treat settlement as consent decree.
OCA asks Google to request delay in hearing."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6675219.html
Groups express concerns about pricing, composition of Book Rights Registry:
"Letter follows up on May meeting.
DoJ should treat settlement as consent decree.
OCA asks Google to request delay in hearing."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6675219.html
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Google pushes for new law on orphan books; CNet News, 7/31/09
Tom Krazit via CNet News; Google pushes for new law on orphan books:
"If those organizations attacking Google's book search settlement with publishers spent as much time lobbying Congress for better laws concerning those issues, perhaps the controversy would go away, Google's chief Book Search engineer suggested Thursday night.
Google's quest to convince the world it has nothing to fear by its settlement with publishers came to the Computer History Museum Thursday where Dan Clancy, engineering director for Google Book Search, defended the settlement before a few hundred attendees who submitted written questions to John Hollar, president and CEO of the museum...
The Internet Archive has been one of the more prominent critics of Google's Book Search settlement, and distributed a statement prior to Thursday's event saying just that. "...no one else has the same legal protections that Google has. Would the parties to the settlement amend the settlement to extend legal liability indemnification to any and all digitizers of orphan works? If not, why not leave orphans out of the settlement and compel a legislative solution instead of striking a private deal in a district court?"
Under the settlement, the Books Rights Registry is allowed to cut deals with other companies or organizations looking to digitize books, but they are not allowed to extend the same privileges Google enjoys with respect to orphan works, which Clancy estimated as about 10 percent of the books that are out of print but still protected by copyright.
That's why a legislative solution that fixes the problems concerning orphan works is the best outcome for everyone with a stake in book digitization, and Google is leaning on Congress to get such a law passed, Clancy said. Given the pressing issues before Congress at the moment--not to mention the complexity of copyright law--finding champions for such legislation has been difficult, he said.
Google thinks that by obtaining the right to digitize orphan works, it will stimulate demand for digital book scanning that eventually forces Congress to act. Any law passed to loosen restrictions on the use of orphan works would take precedent over Google's settlement."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10300887-93.html
"If those organizations attacking Google's book search settlement with publishers spent as much time lobbying Congress for better laws concerning those issues, perhaps the controversy would go away, Google's chief Book Search engineer suggested Thursday night.
Google's quest to convince the world it has nothing to fear by its settlement with publishers came to the Computer History Museum Thursday where Dan Clancy, engineering director for Google Book Search, defended the settlement before a few hundred attendees who submitted written questions to John Hollar, president and CEO of the museum...
The Internet Archive has been one of the more prominent critics of Google's Book Search settlement, and distributed a statement prior to Thursday's event saying just that. "...no one else has the same legal protections that Google has. Would the parties to the settlement amend the settlement to extend legal liability indemnification to any and all digitizers of orphan works? If not, why not leave orphans out of the settlement and compel a legislative solution instead of striking a private deal in a district court?"
Under the settlement, the Books Rights Registry is allowed to cut deals with other companies or organizations looking to digitize books, but they are not allowed to extend the same privileges Google enjoys with respect to orphan works, which Clancy estimated as about 10 percent of the books that are out of print but still protected by copyright.
That's why a legislative solution that fixes the problems concerning orphan works is the best outcome for everyone with a stake in book digitization, and Google is leaning on Congress to get such a law passed, Clancy said. Given the pressing issues before Congress at the moment--not to mention the complexity of copyright law--finding champions for such legislation has been difficult, he said.
Google thinks that by obtaining the right to digitize orphan works, it will stimulate demand for digital book scanning that eventually forces Congress to act. Any law passed to loosen restrictions on the use of orphan works would take precedent over Google's settlement."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10300887-93.html
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Google Book Settlement and the Fair Use Counterfactual; Social Science Research Network, 7/22/09
Matthew Sag, DePaul University College of Law via Social Science Research Network; The Google Book Settlement and the Fair Use Counterfactual:
"Abstract:
This Article compares the Settlement to the most likely outcome of the litigation the settlement resolves. The counterfactual I explore in some detail assumes that the court would have found that the digitization necessary to construct the Google book search engine was protected by copyright law’s fair use doctrine. Although this issue is now unlikely to be litigated, it is nonetheless essential to almost any frame of analysis of the Settlement.
I argue that the fair use issues in relation to the Google Book Search Library Project have been largely misunderstood. Although Google had a very strong set of arguments relating to fair use, it was not likely to receive the courts unqualified approval for its massive digitization effort. Instead, the most likely outcome of the litigation was that book digitization would qualify as a fair use so long as copyright owners were given the opportunity to opt out of inclusion in the book database and that opportunity was made freely available at a cost that was essentially trivial.
From this perspective, the terms of the settlement did not differ significantly from the most likely outcome of the litigation. Essentially, the opt out that fair use would likely have required has been replaced by the ability of copyright owners to opt out of the class-action settlement and the significant opt-out and modification opportunities within the settlement itself.
This Article contains a detailed discussion of the terms of the Settlement. "
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1437812
"Abstract:
This Article compares the Settlement to the most likely outcome of the litigation the settlement resolves. The counterfactual I explore in some detail assumes that the court would have found that the digitization necessary to construct the Google book search engine was protected by copyright law’s fair use doctrine. Although this issue is now unlikely to be litigated, it is nonetheless essential to almost any frame of analysis of the Settlement.
I argue that the fair use issues in relation to the Google Book Search Library Project have been largely misunderstood. Although Google had a very strong set of arguments relating to fair use, it was not likely to receive the courts unqualified approval for its massive digitization effort. Instead, the most likely outcome of the litigation was that book digitization would qualify as a fair use so long as copyright owners were given the opportunity to opt out of inclusion in the book database and that opportunity was made freely available at a cost that was essentially trivial.
From this perspective, the terms of the settlement did not differ significantly from the most likely outcome of the litigation. Essentially, the opt out that fair use would likely have required has been replaced by the ability of copyright owners to opt out of the class-action settlement and the significant opt-out and modification opportunities within the settlement itself.
This Article contains a detailed discussion of the terms of the Settlement. "
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1437812
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Will Google Book Search Settlement Increase Access for Underserved Communities?; Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 7/31/09
Lois Elfman via Diverse Issues in Higher Education; Will Google Book Search Settlement Increase Access for Underserved Communities?:
"“Access is the big concern,” said Steven D. Jamar, professor of law at Howard University School of Law and associate director of Howard’s Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice, which on Wednesday held a panel discussion on the settlement. “Just because you’ve digitized doesn’t make it available.
Lateef Mtima, professor of law at Howard University School of Law and director of IIPSJ, has long noted that copyright protections have repeatedly been used to keep underserved members of the population from having access to a great deal of material.
“For us, the digital divide has always been a constitutional copyright issue,” Mtima said. “We are at a point that it is possible for many of those underserved and marginalized people in society to finally have the kind of access to all the creative expression and literary works - that was just not possible before.”
Among the panelists at Howard was Charlie Brown, adviser to the president of the National Federation for the Blind. The settlement agreement provides access for the visually impaired.
Mtima is concerned that some copyright constituents will take advantage of the opportunities that the settlement agreement presents and try to shape it in a way that will continue to deny access to the underserved. Authors and publishers do have a right to opt their books out and not allow them to be digitized. There are also issues about copyright holders such as photographers or illustrators trying to prevent their work from being digitized with a book’s text, potentially leaving a book incomplete.
“It’s perfectly fine for people to raise a variety of questions and points that indicate that this project is not perfect,” Mtima said. “Those of us who are genuinely interested in the intellectual property law and copyright protection as an engine for social justice and social advancement in society it’s our job to keep the conversation in the right context and keep our thumbs on the right priorities.”
He added that he’s very pleased to see that there will be copyright protections for Black authors whose works have often been celebrated but often uncompensated. But tangential issues cannot override the incredible benefit of having vast amounts of knowledge accessible at virtually everyone’s fingertips. It is also important that there be sufficient numbers of terminals in urban libraries and affordable prices for smaller institutions."
http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12796.shtml
"“Access is the big concern,” said Steven D. Jamar, professor of law at Howard University School of Law and associate director of Howard’s Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice, which on Wednesday held a panel discussion on the settlement. “Just because you’ve digitized doesn’t make it available.
Lateef Mtima, professor of law at Howard University School of Law and director of IIPSJ, has long noted that copyright protections have repeatedly been used to keep underserved members of the population from having access to a great deal of material.
“For us, the digital divide has always been a constitutional copyright issue,” Mtima said. “We are at a point that it is possible for many of those underserved and marginalized people in society to finally have the kind of access to all the creative expression and literary works - that was just not possible before.”
Among the panelists at Howard was Charlie Brown, adviser to the president of the National Federation for the Blind. The settlement agreement provides access for the visually impaired.
Mtima is concerned that some copyright constituents will take advantage of the opportunities that the settlement agreement presents and try to shape it in a way that will continue to deny access to the underserved. Authors and publishers do have a right to opt their books out and not allow them to be digitized. There are also issues about copyright holders such as photographers or illustrators trying to prevent their work from being digitized with a book’s text, potentially leaving a book incomplete.
“It’s perfectly fine for people to raise a variety of questions and points that indicate that this project is not perfect,” Mtima said. “Those of us who are genuinely interested in the intellectual property law and copyright protection as an engine for social justice and social advancement in society it’s our job to keep the conversation in the right context and keep our thumbs on the right priorities.”
He added that he’s very pleased to see that there will be copyright protections for Black authors whose works have often been celebrated but often uncompensated. But tangential issues cannot override the incredible benefit of having vast amounts of knowledge accessible at virtually everyone’s fingertips. It is also important that there be sufficient numbers of terminals in urban libraries and affordable prices for smaller institutions."
http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12796.shtml
Thursday, July 30, 2009
CDT Releases Privacy Recommendations Report for Google Book Service; Center for Technology and Democracy, 7/27/09
Center for Technology and Democracy; CDT Releases Privacy Recommendations Report for Google Book Service:
"CDT today released a report analyzing the privacy risks associated with the proposed expansion of Google Book Search. The report urges Google to commit to a strong privacy regime for the new service in advance of the settlement fairness hearing this fall. The tentative settlement between Google and publishers, the result of a copyright infringement lawsuit, would dramatically alter the way the public obtains and interacts with books. The report asks the court to approve the settlement but to retain oversight in order to monitor implementation of a privacy plan."
http://cdt.org/headlines/1234
"CDT today released a report analyzing the privacy risks associated with the proposed expansion of Google Book Search. The report urges Google to commit to a strong privacy regime for the new service in advance of the settlement fairness hearing this fall. The tentative settlement between Google and publishers, the result of a copyright infringement lawsuit, would dramatically alter the way the public obtains and interacts with books. The report asks the court to approve the settlement but to retain oversight in order to monitor implementation of a privacy plan."
http://cdt.org/headlines/1234
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Op-Ed: Google's Big Plan for Books; New York Times, 7/29/09
Op-Ed: Google's Big Plan for Books; New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/opinion/29wed3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/opinion/29wed3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Organizations Urge Google To Ensure Privacy Protection in Book Search; Library Journal, 7/28/09
Norman Oder via Library Journal; Organizations Urge Google To Ensure Privacy Protection in Book Search:
"(For a set of links, go to LibraryJournal.com/GoogleBookSearchSettlement.)
Public Index debuts
The Public Index, a web site aiming to study and discuss the Google Book Search Settlement, has finally debuted, the work of New York Law School (NYLS) professor James Grimmelmann and colleagues. The centerpiece of the site is an interactive version of the proposed settlement, which allows annotations...
Two defenses of Google
Meanwhile, in a blog post headlined The Earth is Not Flat: The Public Interest and the Google Book Search Settlement: A Reply to Grimmelman, David Balto, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress praises the settlement, writing, “What Google has achieved the in truly remarkable, and potentially transforms the availability of vast amounts of knowledge - much akin to the development of search"...
Similarly, in the San Jose Mercury-News, Jonathan Hillel, a policy fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, criticized the inquiries made by the Justice Department into antitrust implications...
The Google game
Meanwhile, Google has launched the 10 Days in Google Books game, inviting entrants to write a 50-word entry on the topic of books. Each day, the top three submissions will win Sony Readers, while the first 20,000 people to play the game will get Google Books laptop stickers."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6673463.html
"(For a set of links, go to LibraryJournal.com/GoogleBookSearchSettlement.)
Public Index debuts
The Public Index, a web site aiming to study and discuss the Google Book Search Settlement, has finally debuted, the work of New York Law School (NYLS) professor James Grimmelmann and colleagues. The centerpiece of the site is an interactive version of the proposed settlement, which allows annotations...
Two defenses of Google
Meanwhile, in a blog post headlined The Earth is Not Flat: The Public Interest and the Google Book Search Settlement: A Reply to Grimmelman, David Balto, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress praises the settlement, writing, “What Google has achieved the in truly remarkable, and potentially transforms the availability of vast amounts of knowledge - much akin to the development of search"...
Similarly, in the San Jose Mercury-News, Jonathan Hillel, a policy fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, criticized the inquiries made by the Justice Department into antitrust implications...
The Google game
Meanwhile, Google has launched the 10 Days in Google Books game, inviting entrants to write a 50-word entry on the topic of books. Each day, the top three submissions will win Sony Readers, while the first 20,000 people to play the game will get Google Books laptop stickers."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6673463.html
Monday, July 27, 2009
Podcast: Google's Alexander Macgillivray on the Google Book Search Settlement; YouTube, 7/21/09
Podcast [1 hr. 11 min. 33 sec.]: Google's Alexander Macgillivray on the Google Book Search Settlement; 7/21/09 Lecture at Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University:
"The proposed Google Book Search settlement creates the opportunity for unprecedented access by the public, scholars, libraries and others to a digital library containing millions of books assembled by major research libraries. But the settlement is controversial, in large part because this access is limited in major ways: instead of being truly open, this new digital library will be controlled by a single company, Google, and a newly created Book Rights Registry consisting of representatives of authors and publishers; it will include millions of so-called orphan works that cannot legally be included in any competing digitization and access effort, and it will be available to readers only in the United States. Alexander Macgillivray, Deputy General Counsel for Products and Intellectual Property at Google (and soon to be General Counsel of Twitter) chats about the Google Book Search Settlement, its intricacies, pros, and cons, and responds to provocative questions and comments."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2o0lImxl14
"The proposed Google Book Search settlement creates the opportunity for unprecedented access by the public, scholars, libraries and others to a digital library containing millions of books assembled by major research libraries. But the settlement is controversial, in large part because this access is limited in major ways: instead of being truly open, this new digital library will be controlled by a single company, Google, and a newly created Book Rights Registry consisting of representatives of authors and publishers; it will include millions of so-called orphan works that cannot legally be included in any competing digitization and access effort, and it will be available to readers only in the United States. Alexander Macgillivray, Deputy General Counsel for Products and Intellectual Property at Google (and soon to be General Counsel of Twitter) chats about the Google Book Search Settlement, its intricacies, pros, and cons, and responds to provocative questions and comments."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2o0lImxl14
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Cracking Down, Antitrust Chief Hits Resistance; New York Times, 7/25/09
Stephen Labaton via New York Timesl; Cracking Down, Antitrust Chief Hits Resistance:
"President Obama’s top antitrust official and some senior Democratic lawmakers are preparing to rein in a host of major industries, including airline and railroad giants, moving so aggressively that they are finding some resistance from officials within the administration.
The official, Christine A. Varney, the antitrust chief at the Justice Department, has begun examining complaints by the phone companies Verizon and AT&T that their rivals — major cable operators like Cablevision and Cox Communications — improperly prevent them from buying sports shows and other programs that the cable companies produce, industry lawyers said...
Ms. Varney has also challenged agreements that the Federal Trade Commission and consumer groups say discourage pharmaceutical companies from marketing more generic drugs. And she is examining a settlement between Google and book publishers and authors to make more books available online."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/business/26antitrust.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
"President Obama’s top antitrust official and some senior Democratic lawmakers are preparing to rein in a host of major industries, including airline and railroad giants, moving so aggressively that they are finding some resistance from officials within the administration.
The official, Christine A. Varney, the antitrust chief at the Justice Department, has begun examining complaints by the phone companies Verizon and AT&T that their rivals — major cable operators like Cablevision and Cox Communications — improperly prevent them from buying sports shows and other programs that the cable companies produce, industry lawyers said...
Ms. Varney has also challenged agreements that the Federal Trade Commission and consumer groups say discourage pharmaceutical companies from marketing more generic drugs. And she is examining a settlement between Google and book publishers and authors to make more books available online."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/business/26antitrust.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Restless Giant (Lawsuit); James Grimmelmann's Laboratorium Blog, 7/23/09
James Grimmelmann's Laboratorium Blog; The Restless Giant (Lawsuit):
"The Google Book Search case appears to be gradually waking from its long summers’ nap. Objections and comments, which had slowed to a crawl in June and July, have started to pick up again...
There’s also been a sudden spike of activity on the policy front. Three essays of note have crossed my radar.
First, the EFF launched today a privacy campaign targeted at Google, asking it to commit to reader privacy protections as part of implementing the settlement. They’ve sent a letter to Google’s Eric Schmidt laying out their concern...
Second, Bernard Lang, a French computer scientist with an interest in digital copyright, has written a paper on the settlement from an international perspective, with special emphasis on orphan works. He assesses the settlement against the “three-step test” for assessing whether national exceptions and limitations on copyright are permissible under international copyright treaties...
Third, David Balto, a fellow at the Center for America Progress and a prominent antitrust attorney, has a long post at the American Constitution Society’s blog responding to my Issue Brief on the settlement. He critiques my analysis of the antitrust risks and praises the settlement".
http://laboratorium.net/archive/2009/07/23/the_restless_giant_lawsuit
"The Google Book Search case appears to be gradually waking from its long summers’ nap. Objections and comments, which had slowed to a crawl in June and July, have started to pick up again...
There’s also been a sudden spike of activity on the policy front. Three essays of note have crossed my radar.
First, the EFF launched today a privacy campaign targeted at Google, asking it to commit to reader privacy protections as part of implementing the settlement. They’ve sent a letter to Google’s Eric Schmidt laying out their concern...
Second, Bernard Lang, a French computer scientist with an interest in digital copyright, has written a paper on the settlement from an international perspective, with special emphasis on orphan works. He assesses the settlement against the “three-step test” for assessing whether national exceptions and limitations on copyright are permissible under international copyright treaties...
Third, David Balto, a fellow at the Center for America Progress and a prominent antitrust attorney, has a long post at the American Constitution Society’s blog responding to my Issue Brief on the settlement. He critiques my analysis of the antitrust risks and praises the settlement".
http://laboratorium.net/archive/2009/07/23/the_restless_giant_lawsuit
Expanding Access to Books: Implications of the Google Books Settlement Agreement; MIT PressLog, 7/23/09
MIT PressLog; Expanding Access to Books: Implications of the Google Books Settlement Agreement:
"On Wednesday, the Boston Public Library hosted a lively panel on the Google Book Search settlement, the approval for which is currently in the hands of the court. Authors, librarians, publishers, scholars, and other stakeholders packed the Rabb Lecture Hall to hear firsthand about the particulars of the settlement and how it would impact them."
http://mitpress.typepad.com/mitpresslog/2009/07/expanding-access-to-books-implications-of-the-google-books-settlement-agreement-.html
"On Wednesday, the Boston Public Library hosted a lively panel on the Google Book Search settlement, the approval for which is currently in the hands of the court. Authors, librarians, publishers, scholars, and other stakeholders packed the Rabb Lecture Hall to hear firsthand about the particulars of the settlement and how it would impact them."
http://mitpress.typepad.com/mitpresslog/2009/07/expanding-access-to-books-implications-of-the-google-books-settlement-agreement-.html
The Google Books settlement and privacy: frequently asked questions; Inside Google Books Blog, 7/23/09
Inside Google Books Blog; The Google Books settlement and privacy: frequently asked questions:
"The following are some questions we've heard about privacy and Google's proposed settlement agreement with authors and publishers, which is still subject to approval by the court. We've addressed many of them here, and may update this document as our product plans evolve. For more on privacy and the agreement, take a look at our blog post. "
http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2009/07/google-books-settlement-and-privacy.html
"The following are some questions we've heard about privacy and Google's proposed settlement agreement with authors and publishers, which is still subject to approval by the court. We've addressed many of them here, and may update this document as our product plans evolve. For more on privacy and the agreement, take a look at our blog post. "
http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2009/07/google-books-settlement-and-privacy.html
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Opinion: Justice Department's fear of Google book publishing is misplaced; San Jose Mercury News, 7/22/09
Jonathan Hillel via San Jose Mercury News; Opinion: Justice Department's fear of Google book publishing is misplaced:
"Many of the public comments decrying the settlement come from Google's largest competitors. The Internet Archive, which has scanned 1.5 million books to date, claims that Google will monopolize the market for orphaned texts. But the comments by the Archive and others ignore a crucial fact.
The fact that orphan works are out of print implies that these books have little if any market value, and publishers do not consider them profitable to sell. Therefore, they are only available at the few libraries that stock them. In this state, orphan works are unlikely to ever be rediscovered by the market or gain popularity.
Digitizing orphan works will make them available, but there is no guarantee they would acquire market value or earn a profit. Google is paying a high upfront cost for this gambit in both infrastructure investment and settlement payments.
Given all that investment, antitrust penalties on Google would allow its competitors to free-ride on its investment. Internet Archive President Peter Brantley has advocated requiring open access to the orphan works. In practice, that would mean that after Google pays to scan all orphan works, its competitors will be able to pick and choose which ones to offer...
Google is creating a market for orphan works and is making them available for widespread access. Antitrust interference will only distort market incentives and hinder the growth of this nascent sector."
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12893298
"Many of the public comments decrying the settlement come from Google's largest competitors. The Internet Archive, which has scanned 1.5 million books to date, claims that Google will monopolize the market for orphaned texts. But the comments by the Archive and others ignore a crucial fact.
The fact that orphan works are out of print implies that these books have little if any market value, and publishers do not consider them profitable to sell. Therefore, they are only available at the few libraries that stock them. In this state, orphan works are unlikely to ever be rediscovered by the market or gain popularity.
Digitizing orphan works will make them available, but there is no guarantee they would acquire market value or earn a profit. Google is paying a high upfront cost for this gambit in both infrastructure investment and settlement payments.
Given all that investment, antitrust penalties on Google would allow its competitors to free-ride on its investment. Internet Archive President Peter Brantley has advocated requiring open access to the orphan works. In practice, that would mean that after Google pays to scan all orphan works, its competitors will be able to pick and choose which ones to offer...
Google is creating a market for orphan works and is making them available for widespread access. Antitrust interference will only distort market incentives and hinder the growth of this nascent sector."
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12893298
Thursday, July 9, 2009
U. of Wisconsin, U. of Texas Expand Their Agreements With Google; Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wired Campus, 7/9/09
Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wired Campus; U. of Wisconsin, U. of Texas Expand Their Agreements With Google:
"The University of Wisconsin at Madison and the University of Texas at Austin, two longtime participants in Google’s massive book-digitizing project, announced today that they have expanded their agreements with the company. The new deals strengthen the alliance between two big university systems and Google’s Book Search program at a time when it is drawing scrutiny from librarians and federal regulators, among others."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3875
"The University of Wisconsin at Madison and the University of Texas at Austin, two longtime participants in Google’s massive book-digitizing project, announced today that they have expanded their agreements with the company. The new deals strengthen the alliance between two big university systems and Google’s Book Search program at a time when it is drawing scrutiny from librarians and federal regulators, among others."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3875
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Justice Department Formalizes Probe of Google Books Settlement; Wired, 7/2/09
John C. Abell via Wired; Justice Department Formalizes Probe of Google Books Settlement:
"The settlement, between Google and book authors and publishers, allows the search giant to [sic] to create the worlds’ largest digital library by scanning millions of books housed in the nation’s research libraries. Depending on the copyright status of the book, Google shows snippets to full-texts of the books online and in search results. That prompted the Author’s Guild to sue Google in 2005, leading to a settlement in 2007 that covers all book copyright holders. That deal gives Google various legal rights to scan, index, display and sell all books in print online.
A number of parties have objected to the terms of the deal, including Microsoft, consumer groups and the heirs of Philip K. Dick. The main objection to the deal is the way in which so-called orphan works are treated. Under the terms of the agreement Google is protected from copyright infringement from authors who abandoned their books by not registering in its books database. If they show up later, all they can do is collect a little cash, change their book price or ask Google to stop selling the book. Otherwise infringement can be up to $150,000 per violation."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/justice-department-formalizes-probe-of-google-books-settlement/
"The settlement, between Google and book authors and publishers, allows the search giant to [sic] to create the worlds’ largest digital library by scanning millions of books housed in the nation’s research libraries. Depending on the copyright status of the book, Google shows snippets to full-texts of the books online and in search results. That prompted the Author’s Guild to sue Google in 2005, leading to a settlement in 2007 that covers all book copyright holders. That deal gives Google various legal rights to scan, index, display and sell all books in print online.
A number of parties have objected to the terms of the deal, including Microsoft, consumer groups and the heirs of Philip K. Dick. The main objection to the deal is the way in which so-called orphan works are treated. Under the terms of the agreement Google is protected from copyright infringement from authors who abandoned their books by not registering in its books database. If they show up later, all they can do is collect a little cash, change their book price or ask Google to stop selling the book. Otherwise infringement can be up to $150,000 per violation."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/justice-department-formalizes-probe-of-google-books-settlement/
Monday, June 22, 2009
How Good (or Not Evil) Is Google?; New York Times, 6/22/09
David Carr via New York Times; How Good (or Not Evil) Is Google?:
"Among other adventures, Google’s motives were called into question after it scanned in millions of books without permission, prompting the Authors Guild and publishers to file a class-action suit. The proposed $125 million settlement will lead to a book registry financed by Google and a huge online archive of mostly obscure books, searched and served up by Google.
So is that a big win for a culture that increasingly reads on screen — or a land grab of America’s most precious intellectual property?..
"Google is, broadly, the Wal-Mart of the Internet, a huge force that can set terms and price — in this case free — except Google is not selling hammers and CDs, it is operating at the vanguard of intellectual property...
But others, like the Justice Department and a number of state attorneys general, have taken an acute interest in the proposed book settlement that Google negotiated over its right to scan millions of books, many of them out of print. Revenue will be split with any known holders of the copyright, but it is the company’s dominion over so-called orphan works that has intellectual property rights advocates livid.
“It’s disgusting,” said Peter Brantley, director of access for the Internet Archive, which has been scanning books as well. “We all share the general goal of getting more books online, but the class-action settlement gives them a release of any claims of infringement in using those works. For them to say that is not a barrier to entry for other people who might scan in those works is a crock.”
The scanned book project is certainly consistent with the company’s mission, which is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
“What I think is great about books is that people just don’t go to libraries that much, but they are in front of the computer all day,” Mr. [Eric] Schmidt [Google's chief executive] said. “And now they have access. If you are sitting and trying to finish a term paper at 2 in the morning, Google Books saved your rear end. That is a really oh-my-God kind of change.”
The government has not yet made this argument — filings are due in the case in September — but others have pointed out that Google has something of a monopoly because the company went ahead and scanned seven million books without permission.“To be very precise, we did not require permission to make those copies,” Mr. Schmidt said, suggesting that by scanning and making just a portion of those works available, the company was well within the provisions of fair use.
In a later meeting, Mr. [Sergey] Brin [Google's co-founder] waved his hand when it was suggested that the company’s decision to scan books and then reach a settlement had created a barrier to entry for others. (Google also has a separate commercial initiative to work with publishers to sell more current works.)
“I didn’t see anyone lining up to scan books when we did it, or even now,” Mr. Brin said. “Some of them are motivated by near-term business disputes, and they don’t see this as an achievement for humanity.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/business/media/22carr.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20evil&st=cse
"Among other adventures, Google’s motives were called into question after it scanned in millions of books without permission, prompting the Authors Guild and publishers to file a class-action suit. The proposed $125 million settlement will lead to a book registry financed by Google and a huge online archive of mostly obscure books, searched and served up by Google.
So is that a big win for a culture that increasingly reads on screen — or a land grab of America’s most precious intellectual property?..
"Google is, broadly, the Wal-Mart of the Internet, a huge force that can set terms and price — in this case free — except Google is not selling hammers and CDs, it is operating at the vanguard of intellectual property...
But others, like the Justice Department and a number of state attorneys general, have taken an acute interest in the proposed book settlement that Google negotiated over its right to scan millions of books, many of them out of print. Revenue will be split with any known holders of the copyright, but it is the company’s dominion over so-called orphan works that has intellectual property rights advocates livid.
“It’s disgusting,” said Peter Brantley, director of access for the Internet Archive, which has been scanning books as well. “We all share the general goal of getting more books online, but the class-action settlement gives them a release of any claims of infringement in using those works. For them to say that is not a barrier to entry for other people who might scan in those works is a crock.”
The scanned book project is certainly consistent with the company’s mission, which is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
“What I think is great about books is that people just don’t go to libraries that much, but they are in front of the computer all day,” Mr. [Eric] Schmidt [Google's chief executive] said. “And now they have access. If you are sitting and trying to finish a term paper at 2 in the morning, Google Books saved your rear end. That is a really oh-my-God kind of change.”
The government has not yet made this argument — filings are due in the case in September — but others have pointed out that Google has something of a monopoly because the company went ahead and scanned seven million books without permission.“To be very precise, we did not require permission to make those copies,” Mr. Schmidt said, suggesting that by scanning and making just a portion of those works available, the company was well within the provisions of fair use.
In a later meeting, Mr. [Sergey] Brin [Google's co-founder] waved his hand when it was suggested that the company’s decision to scan books and then reach a settlement had created a barrier to entry for others. (Google also has a separate commercial initiative to work with publishers to sell more current works.)
“I didn’t see anyone lining up to scan books when we did it, or even now,” Mr. Brin said. “Some of them are motivated by near-term business disputes, and they don’t see this as an achievement for humanity.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/business/media/22carr.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20evil&st=cse
Friday, June 19, 2009
As US government closes in, Google eyes revenue streams for Book Search; Christian Science Monitor, 6/18/09
Matthew Shaer via Christian Science Monitor; As US government closes in, Google eyes revenue streams for Book Search:
"Earlier today, Google unveiled a new version of its controversial Book Search tool, even as the US government continued its investigation into a deal reached last October between publishers and the Mountain View, Calif.-based tech company. The updated Book Search includes a swath of new features intended to mirror the way we read dead-tree books, from an expanded table of contents to a page-turn button, with accompanying animation...
Book Search currently makes available only public-domain books, or the titles that Google has negotiated the rights to publish. Still, the improvements to the tool will likely help “position Google Books as the library/book store of choice going forward,” David Weir notes over at BNET. There are “multiple potential revenue streams available — advertising, affiliate marketing, keyword search, direct sales, licensing fees, subscription fees, e-reader device sales, and on and on,” he wrote."
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/18/as-us-government-closes-in-google-eyes-revenue-streams-for-book-search/
"Earlier today, Google unveiled a new version of its controversial Book Search tool, even as the US government continued its investigation into a deal reached last October between publishers and the Mountain View, Calif.-based tech company. The updated Book Search includes a swath of new features intended to mirror the way we read dead-tree books, from an expanded table of contents to a page-turn button, with accompanying animation...
Book Search currently makes available only public-domain books, or the titles that Google has negotiated the rights to publish. Still, the improvements to the tool will likely help “position Google Books as the library/book store of choice going forward,” David Weir notes over at BNET. There are “multiple potential revenue streams available — advertising, affiliate marketing, keyword search, direct sales, licensing fees, subscription fees, e-reader device sales, and on and on,” he wrote."
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/18/as-us-government-closes-in-google-eyes-revenue-streams-for-book-search/
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Librarians Fighting Google's Book Deal; Time, 6/17/09
Janet Morrissey via Time; Librarians Fighting Google's Book Deal:
"Goliath Google facing off against a legion of librarians and, possibly, the U.S. Justice Department — now there's a fight...
In a complex settlement agreement, which took three years to hammer out and spans 135 pages excluding attachments, Google will be allowed to show up to 20% of the books' text online at no charge to Web surfers. But the part of the settlement that deals with so-called orphan books — which refers to out-of-print books whose authors and publishers are unknown — is what's ruffling the most feathers in the literary henhouse. The deal gives Google an exclusive license to publish and profit from these orphans, which means it won't face legal action if an author or owner comes forward later. This, critics contend, gives it a competitive edge over any rival that wants to set up a competing digital library. And without competition, opponents fear Google will start charging exorbitant fees to academic libraries and others who want full access to its digital library.
"It will make Google virtually invulnerable to competition," says Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system.
Although competitors could scan orphans, they would not be protected from copyright suits as Google is under the agreement. "They'd face lawsuits all over the place," making the risk too big, said Darnton.
Without competition, pricing could go wild, critics claim. The registry, which oversees pricing, is comprised of authors and publishers who stand to benefit from high subscription fees. "There will be no incentive to keep prices moderate," Darnton says.
The library community recalls with horror the pricing fiasco that occurred when industry consolidation left academic journals in the hands of five publishing companies. The firms hiked subscription prices 227% over a 14-year period, between 1986 and 2002, forcing cash-strapped libraries to drop many subscriptions, according to Van Orsdel. "The chance of the price being driven up in a similar way (in the Google deal) is really very real," he says.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1904495,00.html?imw=Y
"Goliath Google facing off against a legion of librarians and, possibly, the U.S. Justice Department — now there's a fight...
In a complex settlement agreement, which took three years to hammer out and spans 135 pages excluding attachments, Google will be allowed to show up to 20% of the books' text online at no charge to Web surfers. But the part of the settlement that deals with so-called orphan books — which refers to out-of-print books whose authors and publishers are unknown — is what's ruffling the most feathers in the literary henhouse. The deal gives Google an exclusive license to publish and profit from these orphans, which means it won't face legal action if an author or owner comes forward later. This, critics contend, gives it a competitive edge over any rival that wants to set up a competing digital library. And without competition, opponents fear Google will start charging exorbitant fees to academic libraries and others who want full access to its digital library.
"It will make Google virtually invulnerable to competition," says Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system.
Although competitors could scan orphans, they would not be protected from copyright suits as Google is under the agreement. "They'd face lawsuits all over the place," making the risk too big, said Darnton.
Without competition, pricing could go wild, critics claim. The registry, which oversees pricing, is comprised of authors and publishers who stand to benefit from high subscription fees. "There will be no incentive to keep prices moderate," Darnton says.
The library community recalls with horror the pricing fiasco that occurred when industry consolidation left academic journals in the hands of five publishing companies. The firms hiked subscription prices 227% over a 14-year period, between 1986 and 2002, forcing cash-strapped libraries to drop many subscriptions, according to Van Orsdel. "The chance of the price being driven up in a similar way (in the Google deal) is really very real," he says.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1904495,00.html?imw=Y
Sunday, June 14, 2009
As US gov’t circles the wagons, Google’s brass stays cool; Christian Science Monitor, 6/11/09
Matthew Shaer via Christian Science Monitor; As US gov’t circles the wagons, Google’s brass stays cool:
"A day after Google acknowledged it was being investigated by the US Justice Department, two of the company’s lawyers said they saw no cause for concern.
“Most of these issues don’t deal with our core business,” said Dana Wagner, a competition lawyer for Google said yesterday, according to The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper also quoted Google’s chief legal officer David Drummond, who declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
“We hear people’s concerns and we want to address them,” Drummond said. He said he expected Google’s recent settlement on its Book Search project to be approved."
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/11/as-us-govt-circles-the-wagons-googles-brass-stays-cool/
"A day after Google acknowledged it was being investigated by the US Justice Department, two of the company’s lawyers said they saw no cause for concern.
“Most of these issues don’t deal with our core business,” said Dana Wagner, a competition lawyer for Google said yesterday, according to The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper also quoted Google’s chief legal officer David Drummond, who declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
“We hear people’s concerns and we want to address them,” Drummond said. He said he expected Google’s recent settlement on its Book Search project to be approved."
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/11/as-us-govt-circles-the-wagons-googles-brass-stays-cool/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)