Unsettled: Questions about the Google Book Search Settlement | Peer to Peer Review; Library Journal, 12/10/09

Barbara Fister, Library Journal; Unsettled: Questions about the Google Book Search Settlement Peer to Peer Review:

"The most striking change is that the agreement covers a much smaller universe of scanned books, only those published in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia or registered in the US copyright office. Jonathan Brand, author of the third update to the aptly-titled Guide to the Perplexed, estimates "perhaps as much as 50% of the titles in the research libraries partnering with Google are not in English; and most of these foreign language titles probably were published outside the U.S. and were not registered with the Copyright Office."

Other issues that remain problematic in this amended settlement were nicely summed up in a series of posts at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Deep Links blog, all of them related to core library values...

At this point I am as ambivalent as ever about Google's extraordinary "moon shot." From the start, I was concerned, as Rory Litwin was, about the transformation of libraries' collections, developed over decades, into a monopolistic commercial venture, one that depends on lowering privacy barriers to function. I was hopeful, back then, that it might establish a new understanding of fair use that would be of benefit to other digitization projects. I didn't foresee the development of a registry that would enable unprecedented exploitation of books—the majority of published books—that linger in an uncertain copyright limbo.

I was then and still remain skeptical that GBS will transform the way most people tap into the knowledge found in books. For scholars who mine vast research libraries for obscure nuggets, it holds promise, and the limitations of poor scanning, inadequate metadata, and now the exclusion of most works in languages other than English are of serious concern. But for the undergraduates I serve, ones who find our academic library of 300,000 volumes intimidating, its sheer size is actually a drawback.

As Ranganathan said, the library is a living organism. I'll leave the Panglossian vision of the universal, final library to others and get back to tending my own garden."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6711187.html

Google books court battle could be page-turner; Chicago Tribune, 12/7/09

Alex Pham, Chicago Tribune; Google books court battle could be page-turner:

""His [Judge Denny Chin's] preliminary approval is just his procedural OK for the parties to go ahead" to the next step of the settlement process, said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School.

By giving his blessing, Chin essentially restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections...

Potentially the most nettlesome is the question of whether the parties in the settlement should have the right to speak for, and profit from, millions of absent copyright holders or orphan books.

Instead, critics have argued that Congress, not a private lawsuit in federal court, is the appropriate venue to settle the conflict because its outcome could alter the rights of many people who may not be aware of the case.

So even if Chin grants final approval, the settlement could remain mired in the courts."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-tech-google-1128-1206dec07,0,2145400.story

Google Book Search Database Halved By Removing Most Foreign Texts; Library Journal, 11/16/09

Norman Oder, Library Journal; Google Book Search Database Halved By Removing Most Foreign Texts:

• "Only Anglo-American works included
• Issues of pricing, comprehensiveness
• EFF: nothing new on reader privacy
• Department of Justice still concerned

The Wall Street Journal added some crucial context to discussion of the revised Google Book Search Settlement announced late Friday: it "would cut the number of works covered by the settlement by at least half by removing millions of foreign works." (Only works from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada would be included.)

Librarian and consultant Karen Coyle commented, "This greatly changes the value of the institutional subscription for higher education, as well as the value of the 'research corpus' (essentially a database of the OCR'd texts that researchers can use for computational research)... As it is, too many Americans are unaware of the world outside of those Anglo-American borders. This will just exacerbate that problem.

"What about the DOJ?
LJ suggested Saturday that the relatively minor changes on the issue of orphan works—in-copyright but out of print—might draw continued interest from the Department of Justice (DOJ); the Wall Street Journal reported that "the Justice Department remains concerned that the fact the settlement gives Google immunity from lawsuits related to orphan works may be anticompetitive."

Privacy concerns remain
Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote, "Unfortunately, the parties did not add any reader privacy protections. The only nominal change was that they formally confirmed a position they had long taken privately that information will not be freely shared between Google and the Registry."

Timetable: resolution in February?
The proposed timetable sets January 28, 2010 as the deadline for opting out and filing objections or amicus briefs; February 4 for the DOJ response; and February 18 for the final fairness hearing"

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6707253.html

Revised Google Settlement Offers Minor Changes on Antitrust Issue, No Response on Library Pricing; Library Journal, 11/14/09

Norman Oder, Library Journal; Revised Google Settlement Offers Minor Changes on Antitrust Issue, No Response on Library Pricing:

Most foreign language books out; showdown coming with Department of Justice about orphan works?

• More than one free terminal authorized at public libraries
• No discussion of pricing of institutional database
• Open Book Alliance: fundamental flaws not addressed

Shortly before midnight last night, Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers released a revised version (PDF) of the Google Book Search Settlement, with some clear concessions to foreign rightsholders (as noted by Publishers Weekly), a vague—and, to critics, fatally inadequate—concession on orphan works. There was also no response to library concerns about pricing of the potentially monopolistic institutional database—an issue that Google representatives say can't be addressed in the settlement.

The one notable response to criticisms from the library community was an agreement that, as Google representatives had already stated, more than one free public access terminal per library building may be authorized.

The revised settlement also incorporates some other concerns raised by the library community and similarly interested parties. The settlement will allow for Creative Commons licensing, which means that rightsholders—notably academics—can ensure their works are available for no cost. And Google won't "provide personally identifiable information about end users to the Registry other than as required by law or valid legal process...

Orphan works

New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann noted that, while foreign, non-Anglophone books had been taken out and the parties had made some tweaks here and there, the "heart of the settlement’s promise, peril, and problems has always been its treatment of unclaimed works—a category that contains the orphan works. Settlement 1.0 allowed Google to use and sell them on an opt-out basis, and Settlement 2.0 does the same. That gave Google exclusive access to a market segment that no one else can enter, and thus raised antitrust concerns."

University of Michigan Library dean Paul Courant, a settlement supporter, had recently expressed support for "a revised settlement (as suggested by the U.S. Department of Justice) that provided competitors with the ability to use the orphan works on the same terms as Google, or legislation with similar consequence.

"That didn't happen. "The DOJ all but invited Google and the plaintiffs to empower the Registry to license Google’s competitors; they declined that all-but-invitation," Grimmelmann commented. "They’re going to try to tough this one out; the DOJ will have to decide whether to back down or to fight, as this amended settlement doesn’t give it one of the central changes it asked for."

Grimmelmann noted that the agreement sets up a scenario in which Google competitors could scan orphan works should Congress change copyright law. Such a speculative possibility, he observed, "doesn’t create actual competition now." And, if Congress does create a statutory licensing system, "why do we need the class action [lawsuit]?"

His conclusion: despite "meaningful, if modest improvements," the central issue has not been addressed.

From Google

Google's point man Dan Clancy issued a statement: "The changes we've made in our amended agreement address many of the concerns we've heard (particularly in limiting its international scope), while at the same time preserving the core benefits of the original agreement: opening access to millions of books while providing rightsholders with ways to sell and control their work online.""

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6707181.html