Google Co-Founder Defends Book Search Settlement, Draws Criticism; Library Journal, 10/12/09

Norman Oder, Library Journal; Google Co-Founder Defends Book Search Settlement, Draws Criticism:

Says "agreement limits consumer choice in out-of-print books...as much as it limits consumer choice in unicorns."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701481.html

Google digital library plan opposed by Angela Merkel; Guardian, 10/11/09

Jamie Doward and Paul Harris, Guardian; Google digital library plan opposed by Angela Merkel:

"German chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday waded into the row over Google's plans to build a massive digital library.

The move was a remarkable intervention from a leading world politician in a growing dispute about the threat posed by the internet, and Google in particular, to publishing companies, authors and also newspapers.

In her weekly video podcast, before the opening of the Frankfurt Book Fair this week, Merkel appealed for more international co-operation on copyright protection and said her government opposed Google's drive to create online libraries full of scanned books.

"The German government has a clear position: copyrights have to be protected on the internet," Merkel said, adding that there were "considerable dangers" for copyright protection online.

Merkel, who will officially open the world's largest book fair in Germany's financial capital on Tuesday, said there was a need to discuss the issue in greater detail."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/11/google-digital-library-merkel-opposition

OpEd: A Library to Last Forever; New York Times, 10/9/09

Sergey Brin, New York Times; OpEd: A Library to Last Forever:

"In the Insurance Year Book 1880-1881, which I found on Google Books, Cornelius Walford chronicles the destruction of dozens of libraries and millions of books, in the hope that such a record will “impress the necessity of something being done” to preserve them. The famous library at Alexandria burned three times, in 48 B.C., A.D. 273 and A.D. 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection.

I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise. More important, even if our cultural heritage stays intact in the world’s foremost libraries, it is effectively lost if no one can access it easily. Many companies, libraries and organizations will play a role in saving and making available the works of the 20th century. Together, authors, publishers and Google are taking just one step toward this goal, but it’s an important step. Let’s not miss this opportunity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09brin.html

Judge Sets Nov. 9 Deadline For Revised Google Book Settlement; New York Times, 10/7/09

New York Times; Judge Sets Nov. 9 Deadline For Revised Google Book Settlement:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/judge-sets-nov-9-deadline-for-revised-google-book-settlement/?scp=4&sq=google%20books&st=cse

Focusing In On The Value: Google Books Provides An Amazing Resource; TechDirt, 10/2/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Focusing In On The Value: Google Books Provides An Amazing Resource:

"With all of the fighting over the Google Book settlement, it seems that an awful lot of people have lost sight of the key issue, which is that the tool itself, Google's Book Search, is amazing. "

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091002/0331316405.shtml

In Defense Of Google Books; Forbes, 9/25/09

Quentin Hardy, Forbes; In Defense Of Google Books:

Go ahead and hate Google, but it guaranteed our heritage a future.

"If Google's actions seem entirely wrong, consider how we would feel if, in response to all the criticism, Google simply destroyed the 10 million-volume corpus. We would feel an almost irrevocable loss.

The agreement will be reached. Most likely it will be tentative, and subject to review in a few years. It will not be perfect. But if Google had not made its audacious move, we could be heading into the future with a stunted and partial heritage."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/25/books-copyright-internet-intelligent-technology-google.html

Free the Orphans: Are we being played for fools in Google Books play?; ZDNet, 9/23/09

Richard Koman, ZDNet; Free the Orphans: Are we being played for fools in Google Books play?:

"I’m reposting an insightful piece about the pull-back of the Google Books settlement by Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive. Brewster was among the first to cry foul over the deal and he has been a leading voice throughout the full debate."

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5475

Op-Ed: Google book settlement not an open-shut benefit; Washington Post, 9/12/09

OpEd, Washington Post, via Detroit news; Google book settlement not an open-shut benefit:

"Some call it Alexandria 2.0, and the comparison with the great library of antiquity is apt. Google has digitized millions of books, and if its proposed class-action settlement with their authors and publishers passes muster, these books -- formerly the province of college libraries and research institutions -- will be available to everyone. Google began digitizing books without the permission of copyright holders, claiming fair use. This provoked a class-action lawsuit on the part of authors and publishers, resulting in a settlement that offers many boons for the public.

Books already in the public domain will be freely available, and those still under copyright will be available in a standard 20 percent preview. Google will also provide free public access to the entire online repository of content at terminals in nearly 20,000 public and university libraries across the country, only charging fees to print.

But wait, there's more! Google gives book rights holders tremendous control. They can decide what price to charge for their works, control the amount available in the free preview, and add and remove works from the online collection. And the settlement establishes a nonprofit organization, the Book Rights Registry, to locate content owners and serve as a clearinghouse through which they can receive payment from Google and negotiate with new entrants to the digital market.

What about books still under copyright whose owners have not been located -- so-called "orphan" books? Google's claim makes sense: Many rights holders will emerge once they see that their work has value, but it is also in the registry's charter to seek out these rights holders. As Google Book Search generates revenue for content creators, the owners of all but the least-accessed, least-valuable books will probably come forward.

So it's curious that Google felt the need to include a clause in the settlement to prevent the registry, negotiating on behalf of "orphan" books, from offering a better deal to any of the company's competitors within its first 10 years. Google's argument is that it performed a public service by setting up the registry, investing millions of dollars in what will be a non-affiliated, nonprofit organization. This hefty initial investment would not be required of future entrants to the market, leaving Google at a disadvantage. Protection would ensure a level playing field. But if the set of protected books encompasses only those so valueless that no one will come forward to claim them, it is baffling why protection from competition in this area would be valuable. If, on the other hand, locating book rights holders requires time and effort, and the market for digitized versions of these books is easy enough to enter that a competitor could offer a better deal, this clause would create a real barrier to competition.

Google's innovative efforts will enhance the world's access to knowledge, but that doesn't mean it deserves to have it both ways. Its settlement is in many ways better for consumers than the possible outcome of litigation. But the fact that what Google is doing is wonderful should not preclude the potential to do better."

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090912/OPINION01/909120311/1008/OPINION01/Google-book-settlement-not-an-open-shut-benefit

Choosing Up Sides to Hate or Love the Google Books Deal; Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/10/09

Jennifer Howard via Chronicle of Higher Education; Choosing Up Sides to Hate or Love the Google Books Deal:

http://chronicle.com/article/Choosing-Up-Sides-in-the/48357/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Congress to Weigh Google Books Settlement; New York Times, 9/9/09

Miguel Helft via New York Times; Congress to Weigh Google Books Settlement:

"On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled Competition and Commerce in Digital Books that will be all about the landmark settlement of the class action filed by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google in 2005.

Although the hearing is likely to attract some attention, the voice that settlement watchers are most eager to hear is that of the Justice Department, whose lawyers are investigating whether the agreement violates antitrust law. The Justice Department has until Sept. 18 to file its views with the court.

The debate Thursday is certain to be lively, with Google’s top lawyer, David Drummond, squaring off against Amazon’s top public policy executive, Paul Misener. Other speakers include Paul Aiken of the Authors Guild, Marc Mauer of the National Federation of the Blind and David Balto of the Center for American Progress, who support the deal.

Others witnesses are likely to cast a more skeptical eye on the agreement, including John Simpson of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit that has opposed the agreement; Randall Picker, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School who has raised antitrust concerns; and Marybeth Peters, the head of the United States Copyright Office, who has also raised questions about the deal."

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/congress-to-weigh-google-books-settlement/?hpw

Writers want EU to follow US on Google books deal; New Europe, 9/6/09

New Europe; Writers want EU to follow US on Google books deal:

"European writers should follow the US lead and set up a Books Rights Registry in order to profit from the Internet and the rapidly-growing market for electronic books, an American best-selling author said. James Gleick, best known for his books explaining the intricacies of Chaos Theory, said such a registry would help protect their copyright and could even turn their out-of-print tomes into money- makers. “Authors in Europe need to ensure their rights are protected and that any money is shared out among them,” said Gleick, who is also a board member of the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers."

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/95967.php

I'm booking a seat for Google's battle to buy our literary heritage; Observer, 9/6/09

John Naughton via Observer; I'm booking a seat for Google's battle to buy our literary heritage:

"On the one hand, Google clearly has the capacity to make available everything that's ever been published in print - so that anyone with an internet connection can, in principle (and sometimes for a fee), read books otherwise buried in the collections of elite university libraries. And there's clearly a social benefit in that.

On the other hand, think of the downsides. A single commercial company will control much of our cultural heritage. Because it's a settlement based on a class action suit, it will give Google a uniquely privileged position in relation to "orphan" works - ie, those which are still in copyright but for which no owner can be located - which will not be enjoyed by anyone else. And thirdly, it will hand the power to determine access fees to a pair of unaccountable monopolies - Google and the digital rights registry. So it's deeply anti-competitive.

There is a simple remedy for much of this: a change in the law to reverse the fact that copyright infringement carries strict liability, which means that there is effectively no limit on damages. This is why so many orphan works remain effectively unavailable: people are too scared to make them available.

But changing copyright law takes aeons and Judge Chin has to decide now. I bet he has an interesting inbox. But I wouldn't want his job for all the IP in China."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/06/google-digital-books-chin

An author's guide to the Google Books flap; CNet News, 9/1/09

Tom Krazit via CNet News; An author's guide to the Google Books flap:

"The issues surrounding Google's Book Search settlement are among the most complex surrounding the company this year: what do authors need to know about their rights and responsibilities?

Google has scanned over 10 million books since 2004 in participation with libraries and publishers in hopes of creating a unique digital library and storefront, and if its pending settlement with books rights holders is approved next month at a hearing, Google will be able to make a far greater portion of those works available through its search engine. Friday is the deadline for authors to decide if they want to participate in the settlement.

The settlement has drawn attention and criticism from groups such as library ethicists and academics for the way it concentrates control of this potentially wondrous public good in the hands of a for-profit company. The Department of Justice is also taking a look at the settlement, which has the potential to throw a large roadblock ahead of the project.

Authors, however, have a few choices to make as they ponder Friday's deadline. Here's a sampling of what they need to know:..."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10322574-265.html

Google Book Search - Is it The Last Library?; Register, 8/29/09

Cate Metz via Register; Google Book Search - Is it The Last Library?:

"Geoff Nunberg, one of America's leading linguistics researchers, laid this rather ominous tag on Google's controversial book-scanning project amidst an amusingly-heated debate this afternoon on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.

"This is likely to be The Last Library," Nunberg said during a University conference dedicated to Google Book Search and the company's accompanying $125m settlement with US authors and publishers. "Nobody is very likely to scan these books again. The cost of scanning isn't going to come down. There's no Moore's Law for scanning.

"We don't know who's going to be running these files 100 years from now. It may be Google. It may be News Corp. It may WalMart. But we can say with some certainty that 100 years from now, these are the very files scholars will be using."...

Predictably, Google Book Search engineering lead Dan Clancy takes issue with The Last Library characterization. He acknowledges that some of the works Google has scanned will never be scanned again. But he's adamant that although Google has a 10-million-book head start - and a monopoly-building boondoggle of a settlement with authors and publishers - others will compete.

"I don't view Google Book Search as the one and only library," he said. "I don't think it should be and I don't think it will be - in part because, remember, a library is about accessing information, not just accessing books. Libraries were created because books were where information was in the past.

"Libraries are about information, and...Google is not the only book-scanning activity in existence today. There will continue to be other activities. And the internet provides all sorts of information that are linked together in all sorts of ways."...

Though he wouldn't say how much Google has spent scanning books, Clancy admitted it wasn't cheap. "It's a lot," he said. "If this was just tens of millions of dollars, we wouldn't all be siting here debating this. Microsoft would have kept scanning. And there would be much more incentive to do this.""

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/29/google_books/

Google's One Million Books; Forbes, 8/28/09

Steve Pociask via Forbes; Google's One Million Books:

There is still major concern over Google's settlement with author and publisher groups.

"Imagine that your home and the homes of millions of your neighbors are burglarized. Now, say you catch the perpetrator and the case goes to trial. What would you expect--the return of all of your valuable possessions, stringent penalties for damages and jail time for the perpetrator? But instead, the judge agrees to a settlement that lets the perpetrator avoid any penalties, jail time or probation; he lets the perpetrator use the stolen contents for as long as he wants, provided he pays each victim a one-time fee per item; and, for those victims not knowing that their contents were stolen, the perpetrator can keep and use it, without any compensation or penalty at all. Would such a settlement seem fair?

While just an illustration, there are similarities to what is happening now in a court case involving online scanning and use of millions of books, which is in direct violation of copyright protections given to authors and, in this case, the Department of Justice has taken notice, as have a number of state attorneys general and the European Union's competition commission.

In the coming days, authors must decide whether to opt out of the settlement, and in the coming weeks Judge Denny Chin is likely to decide on a settlement involving copyright infringement claims against Google."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/google-book-copyright-opinions-contributors-steve-pociask.html

Has Google Already Won The Book War?; Forbes, 8/26/09

Dirk Smillie via Forbes; Has Google Already Won The Book War?:

It scanned first and asked questions later. Opponents of a rights settlement may not have a chance.

"Excerpts, and in many cases the entire contents, of a staggering number of books are readily available on Google Book Search, yet some of the most definitive works on Google itself are nowhere to be found at the site. Recent searches for Jeff Jarvis' What Would Google Do?, David Vise's The Google Story and John Battelle's The Search produced the following message: "no preview."

Snippets and excerpts of 7 million other books do show up in the database, which critics accuse of being unfairly selective and financially unjust to writers. These are some of the concerns held by William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, which last week fired off an e-mail alert to its authors, urging them to opt out of a complex settlement between Google ( GOOG - news - people ), the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/26/google-books-morris-business-media-copyright.html

Podcast: Lawrence Lessig "The Google Book Search Settlement: Static Good, Dynamic Bad?", Berkman workshop on the Google book search settlement,7/31/09

Podcast: Lawrence Lessig "The Google Book Search Settlement: Static Good, Dynamic Bad?", Berkman workshop on the Google book search settlement:

http://blip.tv/file/2471815

Podcast [3 min. 44 sec.]: Google Deal With Publishers Raises Privacy Concerns; NPR, 8/13/09

Podcast [3 min. 44 sec.] via NPR; Google Deal With Publishers Raises Privacy Concerns:

"Novelist Jonathan Lethem says Google should be "congratulated" for its effort. Lethem adds, "This is the moment to take a look and say, 'Why isn't it as private as the world we're being asked to leave behind, the world of physical books?' "

Lethem wonders whether future readers will have the same kind of relationship with books that he had. "When I was on this very private, very eccentric, intense journey as a younger person, it was crucial that it be a solitary practice," he says. But if future readers have reason to think they're leaving a digital trail, he adds, it might deprive the reading experience of its intimacy.

Lethem is one of several authors — including Michael Chabon and Cory Doctorow — who have signed on to a campaign to pressure Google Books to offer greater privacy guarantees for its readers. The effort was organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"They know which books you search for," says Cindy Cohn, legal director for the foundation. "They know which books you browse through; they know how long you spend on each page."

It's the same kind of information that's produced by someone surfing the Web. But Cohn believes books should enjoy greater privacy.

The EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California want Google to keep reader data for less time than normal Web searches. Ideally, they say, the data should be deleted after a month. "

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111797207

More Seek Privacy from Google Book Search Settlement; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 8/14/09

Richard Esguerra via Electronic Frontier Foundation; More Seek Privacy from Google Book Search Settlement:

"Copyright scholar Pam Samuelson recently investigated the scope of the settlement in an editorial titled "The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement," noting that "...Google has negotiated a settlement agreement designed to give it a compulsory license to all books in copyright throughout the world forever."

The massive potential reach of Google's service makes the company's relative silence on privacy all the more problematic. A New York Times editorial praises the potential of more equitable, complete access to the world's knowledge, but cautions against the immense power that Google will then have:

"Google could collect data on what books people read and create a dossier of their political views and other information. Google should generally do a better job of showing how it will respect privacy, and [Google Book Search] is no exception."

Libraries are keenly familiar with the fact that intellectual freedom depends on the ability to read books privately -- there is a long-standing tradition of libraries upholding the privacy of patrons and defending against invasive requests for reading histories. The American Library Association recently participated in a panel discussion of the Google Book Search Settlement and expressed concerns about the chilling effects proliferated by a lack of privacy protections:

"[Dr. Inouye, Director of the ALA Office for Information Technology Policy,] went on to say that inadequate privacy protections could also produce a chilling effect on intellectual freedom, as users are less likely to explore particular lines of inquiry if they feel uncomfortable with uncertain information gathering techniques employed by Google or the Book Rights Registry. As a contrast to the paltry user privacy protections in the settlement, Inouye noted the extensive sections outlining cumbersome security provisions inserted to make sure rightholders content is secure.""

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/more-seek-privacy-google-book-search-settlement

The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement; Huffington Post, 8/10/09

Pamela Samuelson via Huffington Post; The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement:

"Sorry, Kindle. The Google Book Search settlement will be, if approved, the most significant book industry development in the modern era. Exploiting an opportunity made possible by lawsuits brought by a small number of plaintiffs on one narrow issue, Google has negotiated a settlement agreement designed to give it a compulsory license to all books in copyright throughout the world forever. This settlement will transform the future of the book industry and of public access to the cultural heritage of mankind embodied in books. How audacious is that? "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/the-audacity-of-the-googl_b_255490.html