Tome raider; Economist, 9/3/09

Economist; Tome raider:

A fuss over the internet search firm’s effort to build a huge digital library

"PAUL COURANT, the dean of libraries at the University of Michigan, jokes that he also runs “an orphanage”. Among the books on his shelves are such seminal texts as “Blunder Out of China” and “The Appalachian Frontier: America’s First Surge Westward”, which are protected by copyrights belonging to people who cannot be found. Known as “orphan” books, such titles are one element of a controversial plan by Google, the world’s biggest internet company, to create a vast online library...

Opposition to the deal is brewing all around the world. On August 31st the German government filed a submission to the American court arguing that the agreement, which encompasses books by German authors published in the United States, would violate Germany’s copyright law. French publishers also claim the agreement will contravene laws in their homeland. They note that there are no plans for European representatives on the book-rights registry that would be set up under the deal to collect and distribute payments due to copyright owners. This has heightened suspicions that foreigners will be fleeced.

In Japan two noted writers have filed a complaint with local authorities about Google’s actions. Many American firms oppose the deal, including Microsoft and Yahoo!, two of Google’s big competitors, as well as Amazon, a big retailer of books in both paper and electronic form. Amazon argues that Congress, rather than Google and its allies, should decide how copyrights should be handled in the digital age.

Together with the Internet Archive, a non-profit organisation which runs a rival project to digitise libraries’ contents, these firms have formed a group called the Open Book Alliance to campaign against the agreement. A posting on the Alliance’s website claims that the agreement would create a monopoly in digital books that would inevitably lead to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. Such complaints have attracted the attention of America’s Department of Justice, which is examining the agreement to see whether it is anti-competitive. It is due to send its findings to the court by September 18th."

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14376406

Tech's Heavyweights Put Google's Books Deal In Crosshairs; Wall Street Journal, 8/21/09

Jessica E. Vascallero and Geoffrey A. Folwer via Wall Street Journal; Tech's Heavyweights Put Google's Books Deal In Crosshairs:

"Three technology heavyweights and some library associations are joining a coalition led by a prominent Silicon Valley lawyer to challenge Google Inc.'s settlement with authors and publishers.

Peter Brantley, a director at coalition co-founder Internet Archive said the group, whose members will be formally disclosed in the next couple of weeks, is being co-led by Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley lawyer involved in the Department of Justice's antitrust investigation against Microsoft Corp. last decade. Microsoft, Amazon.com Inc. and Yahoo Inc. have agreed to join the group. Mr. Reback did not reply to requests for comment.

Microsoft and Yahoo confirmed their participation. Amazon declined to comment.

The coalition is the latest sign that Google's rapid ascent has made it a prime target for competitors, just as Microsoft was reviled as the industry's bully in the 1990s.

Google defended the settlement, struck last October with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. "The Google Books settlement is injecting more competition into the digital books space, so it's understandable why our competitors might fight hard to prevent more competition," a Google spokesman said in a statement...

Since last year, a broad group of authors, librarians, European publishers and privacy advocates have argued that the settlement gives Google an unfair copyright immunity in offering future services around digital books that would be tough for other businesses to match."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125080725309147713.html

Google Rivals Will Oppose Book Settlement; New York Times, 8/21/09

Miguel Helft via New York Times; Google Rivals Will Oppose Book Settlement:

"Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo are planning to join a coalition of nonprofit groups, individuals and library associations to oppose a proposed class-action settlement giving Google the rights to commercialize digital copies of millions of books...

Gary L. Reback, an antitrust lawyer in Silicon Valley, who is acting as counsel to the coalition, said that Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo had all agreed to join the group, which is tentatively called the Open Book Alliance. The group, led by Mr. Reback and the Internet Archive, a nonprofit group that has been critical of the settlement, plans to make a case to the Justice Department that the arrangement is anticompetitive. Members of the alliance will most likely file objections with the court independently.

“This deal has enormous, far-reaching anticompetitive consequences that people are just beginning to wake up to,” said Mr. Reback, a lawyer with Carr & Ferrell, a firm in Palo Alto, Calif. In the 1990s, Mr. Reback helped persuade the Justice Department to file its landmark antitrust case against Microsoft.

Some library associations and groups representing authors are also planning to join the coalition, he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/technology/internet/21google.html?scp=2&sq=google%20book%20search&st=cse

Op-Ed: Is Google playing by the book?; Christian Science Monitor, 8/7/09

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

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

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

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

U.S. Confirms Investigation of Google Books Deal; New York Times, 7/2/09

Miguel Helft via New York Times; U.S. Confirms Investigation of Google Books Deal:

"Antitrust experts said the letter was the latest indication that the Justice Department is seriously examining complaints that the agreement would grant Google the exclusive right to profit from millions of so-called “orphan works,” books that are out of print and whose authors or rights holders are unknown or cannot be found.

“This is the next step in the notion that this is a serious issue, so serious that the Justice Department needs to notify the court,” said Gary L. Reback, a lawyer at Carr & Ferrell, and the author of a recent book on antitrust issues. “It sets the stage for the department to come into the court to present a problem.”...

In a response, United States District Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, who is charged with reviewing the settlement, set a deadline of Sept. 18 for the government to present its views in writing.

Judge Chin has scheduled a hearing on the settlement for Oct. 7 and said the government could also lay out its views orally at that time.

Opponents of the settlement hailed the department’s letter, saying it was a sign that the government was listening to their complaints.

“We are heartened that the D.O.J. is taking the concerns that we have expressed seriously,” said Peter Brantley, the director of access for the Internet Archive. Mr. Brantley’s organization is spearheading an effort to digitize books from libraries and make them broadly available, in competition with Google’s own digitization project. It has argued that the settlement would make it more difficult for the Internet Archive to pursue its plan.

Google and the other parties to the settlement have vigorously defended it.

“It’s important to note that this agreement is nonexclusive and, if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.,” Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman, said in a statement. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/technology/companies/03google.html?_r=1&ref=technology

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

Cornell Library Lifts Restrictions on Public Domain Works; Library Journal.com, 5/14/09

Josh Hadro via Library Journal.com; Cornell Library Lifts Restrictions on Public Domain Works: 70,000 public domain works contributed to the Internet Archive:

"Coinciding with the donation of 70,000 public domain works to the Internet Archive, the Cornell University Library has announced that it will no longer requires users to seek permission to reuse public domain materials for any purpose.

According to the library's statement, the shift in practice stems from a desire to be consistent with the library and faculty's commitment to Open Access...

Because the materials in question are already in the public domain, and because no new rights to restrict usage of the material are granted during the digitization process, researchers technically had the legal right to use and republish the materials. Indeed, the announcement acknowledges that the tension between institutional licensing policies and users rights can lead to charges of copyfraud, something Cornell hopes to avoid with the codification of this new policy."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6658219.html