[Podcast & Transcript] Google's Goal: Digitize Every Book Ever Printed, PBS NewsHour

[Podcast & Transcript] PBS NewsHour; Google's Goal: Digitize Every Book Ever Printed:

"GARY REBACK: People no longer see any big difference between Google and Google's competitors. They're in it for money. And we need to depend on the competitive system to protect us.

SPENCER MICHELS: Does that go for Amazon and Microsoft as well?

GARY REBACK: It absolutely does. In this case, for example, Amazon was digitizing books long before Google was. Microsoft wanted to digitize books. Neither of them got the same deal that Google got -- got secretly, but, if they had, we would be -- all be better off because of it.

SPENCER MICHELS: Questions like those are being debated around the world. At Stanford, top librarians met recently to wrestle with how to adapt to the new online book resources and whether to cooperate with digitizations of their collections.

And bookstores like Berkeley's Pegasus, already in competition with discount booksellers, have to adapt as well. This store now sells digital books through its Web site. Besides the competition from online books, store owner Amy Thomas also worries about privacy of digital book buyers.

AMY THOMAS: They have a right to read without being -- having their reading records subpoenaed for whatever reason. They have a right to this privacy. And we will hope that Google will maintain, zealously maintain, defend those rights.

SPENCER MICHELS: Pam Samuelson is equally skeptical of Google's privacy policies. She puts her trust in libraries.

For its part, Google says it has been a huge advocate for user privacy. Antitrust concerns, copyright law, competition and privacy are all at issue in a flurry of lawsuits, friend-of-the-court briefs and interest from the Department of Justice. They will come to a head in February, when a federal judge holds a hearing on the Google case in New York."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec09/google_12-30.html

Desire to scan old books has critics casting Google as Goliath; San Jose Mercury News, 11/1/09

Mike Swift, San Jose Mercury News; Desire to scan old books has critics casting Google as Goliath:

"Company co-founder Sergey Brin has said repeatedly in recent weeks that Google is primarily acting with the public good in mind to preserve the world's cultural heritage in old books.

"I've been surprised at the level of controversy there," Brin said at a recent Internet conference in San Francisco. "Because digitalizing the world's books to make them available, there's been nobody else who's attempted it at our scale."

Federal regulators didn't see it that way, with the U.S. Department of Justice asking a federal judge this fall to reject the proposed class action settlement. Department officials say Google's plans would potentially violate federal antitrust laws.

The issue has clearly become more prominent because of Google's vast ambitions — its dominant search index to more than a trillion of web pages, and its march into digital maps, mobile phones, online video and other sectors of the Internet.

The controversy has shown Google is not that different from other profit-driven corporations, said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia.

"It really took something this big and grand to show that Google does have problems, and does have vulnerabilities, and can be exploitative," Vaidhyanathan said. "I'm as surprised as anybody that this turned out to be the moment in which Google's true nature came to light."

Google says negotiations are on track to have a revamped proposal ready before the Nov. 9 court deadline. While the search giant also ran afoul of the Justice Department last year over a proposed advertising partnership with Yahoo, even Google acknowledges public scrutiny has grown.

"It's absolutely partially about Google's size," said Daniel Clancy, engineering director of Google Book Search and a lead negotiator with authors and publishers. "If this settlement came out three years ago, what would have been in the press would be very different."

After more than 500 years where most human knowledge was stored in books, the controversy about digital books also "is a big Rorschach test, if you will, for the concerns people have about a digital future," Clancy said.

Google has insisted that its digital books plans, however they ultimately emerge from the ongoing talks, will leave room for competitors.

In an op-ed article in The New York Times, Brin said Google hoped "to unlock the wisdom held in the enormous number of out-of-print books, while fairly compensating the rights holders."
Brin did not even mention the Justice Department's concerns about competitive disadvantage in the article.

The department's filing in the case argues that "other digital distributors may be effectively precluded from competing with Google in the sale of digital library products and other derivative products to come."

For opponents like Pam Samuelson, a copyright expert at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped organize opposition to the digital books plan, Brin's omissions rankle.

"To me that sounds like they don't care what the Department of Justice thinks. It sounds a little like hubris to me," Samuelson said. "Google has done a great job of shining the spotlight on things about the settlement that people would find attractive, but they don't tell you some of the stuff that would be most worrisome about it.""

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_13680481

Chinese Authors Object to Google’s Book Scanning; New York Times, 10/30/09

Sharon LaFraniere, New York Times; Chinese Authors Object to Google’s Book Scanning:

"Two Chinese writers’ groups claim that Google has scanned Chinese works into an electronic database in violation of international copyright standards. The organizations are urging China’s authors to step forward and defend their rights.

“Google has seriously violated the copyrights of Chinese authors. That is an undeniable fact,” Chen Qirong, a spokesperson for the China Writers’ Association, said by telephone. The group says it represents nearly 9,000 writers.

Google has sent a representative to Beijing to meet on Monday with officials of the China Written Works Copyright Society, which manages Chinese copyrights. The company insists it has fully complied with copyright protections...

“We take the view, backed up by international copyright law, that no copyright is violated in this process since the amount of text displayed is so small and it’s purely for information,” said Courtney Hohne, a Google spokeswoman, in an phone interview from Singapore. “In fact, it’s comparable to a quotation from a book in a review or our Web search results, both of which are perfectly legal.” Ms. Hohne said it is virtually impossible for Google to discover who holds the rights to all of the millions of books on library shelves. Waiting for copyright holders to surface would doom any effort to create a comprehensive electronic index, she said. If a copyright holder does object, Google removes the snippets or even all reference to the book from the search engine, she said.

The Chinese groups see it differently. “It is as you have something nice in your living room and Google takes it and puts it in its living room,” said Zhang Hongbo, deputy director general of the Chinese copyright society. “We are definitely opposed to using our works without our permission.”...

Marybeth Peters, the top copyright official in the United States, told Congress in September that the settlement could put “diplomatic stress” on the government because it would affect foreign authors whose rights are protected by international treaties. The governments of France and Germany formally oppose the deal."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/technology/internet/31google.html

Google Accused of 'malicious Revenge' in China; PC World, 10/28/09

Owen Fletcher, PC World; Google Accused of 'malicious Revenge' in China:

"The official newspaper of China's ruling communist party has accused Google of seeking "malicious revenge" after a malware warning appeared by one of its Web sites in Google's search results.

The Google notice, which said the books section of the People's Daily site could contain malware, appeared last week and prevented some visits to the Web page because its link redirected to a Google warning, according to a local media report also posted by the People's Daily. A site representative was cited in the report as blaming "malicious revenge from Google" and saying the paper would take actions against such "vile behavior" by the company. The paper would not rule out legal action, the representative was cited as saying.

The paper's statements are the latest negative press Google has received this year in China, where its share of the user search market began slipping in recent months. Chinese authorities and state media earlier this year slammed Google for allowing pornographic links to appear in its search results. Google's book scanning project has also come under fire in China in recent weeks as local authors have begun voicing concerns about copyright violation by the search engine...

The top headline on the book news site on Wednesday led to a collection of stories about local opposition to Google's book scanning program. "Is the Google library an angel or a devil?" read one headline near the top of the page."

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/174549/google_accused_of_malicious_revenge_in_china.html

OpEd: Proposed Google book settlement leaves libraries' rights in question; San Jose Mercury News, 10/22/09

OpEd: Melinda Cervantes and Jane Light, San Jose Mercury News; Proposed Google book settlement leaves libraries' rights in question:

"The problem with the initial proposed settlement is a lack of specificity about how public libraries throughout the United States would be able to provide access to Google Book Search for millions of citizens. Would each library, regardless of its size and number of users, only be allowed to have one computer that could be used to access the Google Book Search?

What about access for the many library cardholders who use their home or work computers to "visit" the library's online resources? Would they be shut out?

Would the public be required to give up anonymity and privacy in order to explore Google's digitized library? Who would hold this information, and what assurance would library users have that the data would not be used for commercial purposes?

What would be the cost to libraries to access Google's Book Search — and should they have to pay anything at all, considering that much of Google's collection is material already in the public domain, and many of the books they are scanning come from publicly funded libraries?

These are troubling questions, and not just for librarians. They get to the heart and soul of what libraries are all about: equal access to information for everyone and a guarantee of privacy.

More people than ever are coming to their local libraries for resources. Some are budding inventors and entrepreneurs who are seeking inspiration for the next great innovation. Some are self-motivated independent learners who want to read, research and learn just for the fun of it. And, of course, many are students who rely as much on the public library as their school library for access to the world of information. The needs of the public are equally important as the intellectual property rights of authors.

So far, the Google settlement is being treated as if it were just another private litigation. It's not. Google's digitized library represents a huge worldwide public policy issue with complex, significant impacts that need further exploration."

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13619997#

Book Scanning Prompts Review of EU Copyright Laws; New York Times, 10/19/09

AP via New York Times; Book Scanning Prompts Review of EU Copyright Laws:

"The European Commission said Monday it may revise copyright law to make it easier for companies like Google Inc. to scan printed books and distribute digital copies over the Internet.

Such changes would likely include ways to more easily compensate authors and publishers, possibly through a statutory license in which a company would automatically get rights to scanning and would pay royalties to a collective pool. Money from that pool would then get distributed to copyright holders.

Under Europe's current patchwork of copyright laws, rights are now managed separately in each of the European Union's 27 nations, making it difficult to seek permission to republish or digitize content, especially when the rights holder is hard to find.

The European Commission said it would start work next year, with the goal of encouraging mass-scale digitization and suggesting ways for compensating copyright holders. Any suggested changes to European law would have to be approved by EU governments and lawmakers.
The commission said the move was partly triggered by a hearing it held in September where European authors, publishers, libraries and technology companies spoke out about how they would be affected by a deal Google is negotiating in the U.S."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/19/business/AP-EU-EU-Digital-Books.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=copyright&st=cse

Google Books in China; Chapter Two; Wall Street Journal, 10/22/09

Loretta Chao, Wall Street Journal; Google Books in China; Chapter Two:

"In response to the recent uproar over Google’s (GOOG) digital library in China, Google initially gave a boilerplate response about its U.S. book settlement applying only to U.S. books, and that the company will “of course” listen carefully to concerns and work hard to address them.

Thursday, journalists received an updated statement from the company saying the Chinese books in its library are available only in snippets, unless use of the full texts is approved by rights holders. Yet somehow, state-run newspaper China Daily seems to have taken this to mean Google plans to make a new settlement with Chinese authors. Today’s headline read, “Oodles of woe for Google,” and the lead paragraph says the company “may draw up a new statement to put out its copyright fire in China, according to a statement.”

Is it possible that China Daily got a different statement than other media, or is it merely putting another spin on Google’s comments? In its article, the paper uses quotes that were in Google’s initial, boilerplate statement, which certainly did not seem to imply any new settlement. Here is the latest from Google:

“Today we have more than 50 Chinese publishers participating in Google Book Search, who together have authorized more than 30,000 books to be found through Google web search–and made available through a short preview. We also have some Chinese books that have been scanned by our Book Search library partners; in those cases, we only make the books available as a short snippet of text–as we do with web search–unless the rightsholder authorizes a greater use. We also honor rightsholders’ preferences if they ask not to be included.”

“Like all rightsholders, Chinese authors and publishers will be able to tell Google whether or not to display their books, and will be paid if the books are included in sales or subscriptions authorized under the settlement.”

Either way, according to the China Daily story, Google’s new tack is still unacceptable to the China Written Works Copyright Society.

“We want Google to admit its infringement, apologize, and authorize a formal negotiator to discuss specific compensation with Chinese authors,” Zhang Hongbo, CWWCS deputy director-general, told China Daily."

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/10/22/google-books-in-china-chapter-two/

EFF Urges Court to Ensure Fairness in Google Book Search Amendment Process; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10/22/09

Cindy Cohn, Electronic Frontier Foundation; EFF Urges Court to Ensure Fairness in Google Book Search Amendment Process:

"EFF today led a coalition of authors, publishers, companies and nonprofit organizations in sending a letter to the judge overseeing the Google Book Search settlement urging the Court to ensure that those concerned about the settlement receive adequate notice of, and have sufficient time to study and comment on, any amended settlement agreement that Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers present.

Those following the twists and turns of the Google Book Search settlement will recall that the original Fairness Hearing scheduled for October 7, 2009, was put off because of what the Court called: "significant issues, as demonstrated not only by the number of objections, but also by the fact that the objectors include countries, states, non-profit organizations, and prominent authors and law professors." The Court received over 400 submissions about the settlement, including the EFF-led coalition of authors and publishers concerned about reader privacy, as well as significant concerns raised by the Department of Justice.

As a result, the parties have promised the Court that they will submit an amended settlement on November 9, 2009. Today's letter arises from the parties' discussions with the Court in which they have suggested that the amendments to the already complex agreement be subject to limited notice and ability to comment and a truncated schedule ending with a Fairness Hearing in late December or early November. It states: "We signatories raised different specific concerns and issues about this settlement from a number of different vantage points. We are united, however, in our concern that the parties' requests to limit notice and the time and scope of objections will be unfair to us and to other class members."

The Google Book Settlement is simply too important -- and too complex -- to be rushed through the court approval processes without sufficient opportunity for analysis and comment."

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/eff-urges-court-ensure-fairness-google-book-search

Google book digitization prompts the EU to rethink copyright; Ars Technica, 10/19/09

John Timmer, Ars Technica; Google book digitization prompts the EU to rethink copyright:

"The legal settlement that would sanctify Google's book digitization efforts may be on hold, but that hasn't stopped the sniping over digitization in general, and Google's specific role in vending e-books. The Frankfurt Book Fair, a major publishing event, is playing host to the latest skirmishes over what role Google and other organizations should play in controlling access to digitized material. Google continues to insist that it's doing the world a favor by preserving knowledge and bringing lost books back to the public, but at least some European academics are blasting the company's statements as propaganda. In the meantime, however, the EU itself has used the Fair to announce an effort to update its copyright laws and launch its own pan-European digital library.

The Google book settlement was not well received within the EU, in part because of the same sorts of competition concerns that caused the US Department of Justice to weigh in against it. But Europeans had some distinct concerns, as Google has scanned copies of European works that reside in US Libraries, even though these were never licensed for US distribution. This unlicensed content was especially problematic given the settlement's structure, which would allow Google to distribute the works unless their owners explicitly opted out.

Google eventually made some concessions in an attempt to mollify its European critics, and these seem to have at least produced some fruitful discussions. Today, the European Commission released a statement entitled "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy" that suggests that the EU may be ready to tackle copyright reform for digital works.

The document describes extensive consultations with stakeholders, including libraries and publishers, and discusses the impact that digitization could have on improving access to orphaned works, preserving content, and making works accessible to the disabled. Although all of these are presented as a public good, the documents and statements by Commissioners that accompanied its release make it clear that Google was a major impetus for this effort. The company is mentioned by name several times, and Commissioner Viviane Reding said that updating the rules governing books had acquired a degree of urgency due to Google's actions: "If we act swiftly, pro-competitive European solutions on books digitisation may well be sooner operational than the solutions presently envisaged under the Google Books Settlement in the United States."

Of course, acting swiftly may be a relative thing, given that the EU has yet to even harmonize the rules governing copyrighted books among its member states...

[T]he EU government also had an open access announcement to make at the meeting. It's gone back and digitized all 50 years of its own documents, and has placed all 12 million pages online at the EU Bookshop. The documents are available to the public for free in PDF form, and will eventually appear in the Europeana digital archive."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/google-book-digitization-prompts-the-eu-to-rethink-copyright.ars

Google Books Settlement: The Chinese Chapter; Wall Street Journal, 10/20/09

Juliet Ye, Wall Street Journal; Google Books Settlement: The Chinese Chapter:

"Google’s troubles in China seem to have taken a new turn as a result of the company’s plan to create a vast digital library of books.

The China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) has called on Chinese writers to stand up for their legal rights in the face of Web search giant Google’s proposed book settlement, according to a post published on the official Web site of Chinese Writers’ Association (CWA).
CWWCS claimed to have found copyrighted works written by a number of Chinese writers scanned and posted to Google’s digital library, Google Books."

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/10/20/google-books-settlement-the-chinese-chapter/

Google's e-book plan slammed as 'hysterical garbage'; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/19/09

Sydney Morning Herald; Google's e-book plan slammed as 'hysterical garbage':

""Garbage" and "hysterical propaganda" was one angry reaction at the world's biggest book fair this year when Google, the world's biggest internet search service, defended plans to turn millions of books into electronic literature available online.

The row erupted at the 61st international Frankfurt Book Fair, a major annual literary event.

A literature professor from Germany's Heidelberg University responded sharply to Google Books, a massive project to give the world access to books otherwise hard or impossible to obtain.

Describing Google's claims as "just a whole garbage of hysterical propaganda," Professor Roland Reuss warned of a threat to traditional publishing, saying at a forum on the issue: "You revolutionize the market but the cost is that the producers of goods in this market will be demolished."

Google's head of Print Content Partnerships in Britain, Santiago de la Mora, responded: "We're solving one of the big problems in the world, that is books are pretty much dead in the sense that they are not being found."

"We're bringing these books back to life, making them more visible to 1.8 billion internet users in a very controlled way," de la Mora said.

Google Books is facing big legal problems in the United States, Europe and elsewhere around the globe over the key issue of copyright laws."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/googles-ebook-plan-slammed-as-hysterical-garbage-20091019-h3ha.html

"Libraries, Publishers and Leading Advocates Join Open Book Alliance in Calling for Open, Transparent Settlement Process", Reuters, 10/6/09

Reuters; Libraries, Publishers and Leading Advocates Join Open Book Alliance in Calling for Open, Transparent Settlement Process in Google Book Search Case:

"Dozens of leading academic,library, consumer advocacy, organized labor and publishing organizationsjoined the Open Book Alliance today in calling on Google and its litigationpartners to create an open and transparent process to negotiate a settlementin the Google Book Search case.
The parties published an open letter toGoogle, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers,demanding that they include key stakeholders to represent the broad range ofpublic interests in the mass digitization of books. Google and its partnersabandoned a previous settlement proposed in the case after the U.S. Departmentof Justice and others criticized the deal and recommended that the courtreject it, but Google and the plaintiff publishers continue to negotiatebehind closed doors on a revised settlement proposal.

The letter, available at http://www.openbookalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Open-Letter-Oct-6-09.pdf,states in part:

"The Department of Justice identified scores of serious problems with theproposed settlement, which cannot be fixed with simple alterations to theagreement. Other stakeholders raised even more objections, which the partieshave largely ignored. In order to address these very real and very complexchallenges, negotiations on this issue must involve a broad range ofstakeholders in an open and transparent manner."

Joining the Open Book Alliance in calling on Google and its partners to openthe process in service of the public interest are leading library associationssuch as the New York Library Association, the Ohio Library Council, the NewJersey Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association; publisherssuch as the Council of Literary and Magazine Presses and Sarabande Books;writers' representatives such as the National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981;and many others concerned that Google will unfairly monopolize the massdigitization of books, raising prices for consumers and limiting access toimportant literary works.

The letter signatories universally support the goal of book digitization -making books searchable, readable and downloadable. They insist, however, thatGoogle and a few publishing groups not be permitted to be the sole controllersof this major cultural development, saying:

"Discussion and debate about the right way to digitize the world's writtenworks must proceed through a robust process that includes input from allstakeholders, including authors, libraries, independent publishers, consumeradvocates, state Attorneys General, the Justice Department, and Congress.""

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS168494+06-Oct-2009+PRN20091006

State AGs Don't Like Google Books Deal, What About Readers?; PC World, 9/18/09

Dave Coursey, PC World; State AGs Don't Like Google Books Deal, What About Readers?:

"Five state attorneys general have joined the opposition to the Google Books settlement, but what the deal means to readers isn't clear. Access to more books sounds great, but will it be?

The five AGs, from Missouri, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Washington, have varied reasons for their opposition, ranging from anti-monopoly to how money owed missing authors should be handled. The attorneys general are relatively late arrivals to the case, which already involves the U.S. Justice Department and others"

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/172229/state_ags_dont_like_google_books_deal_what_about_readers.html

Resistance to Google book deal builds as Google woos Europe; Ars Technica, 9/8/09

John Timmer via Ars Technica; Resistance to Google book deal builds as Google woos Europe:

Last week saw a flurry of filings as the deadline passed for parties to formally voice their displeasure or support for Google's settlement with book authors and publishers. Now, the action seems to have shifted to Europe, which got some significant concessions from the search giant.

"It's obvious that the concerns about, and outright resistance to, the original settlement have been extensive, and Google is willing to make some significant concessions to try to get the deal to go through. What's less obvious is whether these concessions will be formally made part of the legal settlement and, if so, whether outside parties will have another opportunity to comment on the revisions. The scheduled decision is now less than a month away, but it looks like it's going to be an extremely busy month for everyone involved."

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/09/resistance-to-book-deal-builds-as-google-woos-europe.ars

Microsoft calls Google Books deal 'misuse' of the law; Guardian, 9/9/09

Bobbie Johnson via Guardian; Microsoft calls Google Books deal 'misuse' of the law:

"Google's battle to digitise millions of copyrighted books has taken another blow, after rival technology giant Microsoft lodged a brief with an American court that called the proposals "illegitimate".

In the filing delivered to the southern district court of New York - which is examining the proposed $125m deal that would give Google the right to digitise millions of in-copyright books - Microsoft called the scheme "an unprecedented misuse of the judicial system"...

Echoing arguments made by other critics, including Amazon and European regulators, the Seattle software giant added a scathing rebuttal of Google's deal.

"A class action settlement is the wrong mechanism, this court is the wrong venue and monopolisation is the wrong means to carry out the worthy goal of digitising and increasing the accessibility of books.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/09/google-books-microsoft

Legal arguments pan, praise Google's book deal; Associated Press, 9/8/09

Michael Liedtke via Associated Press; Legal arguments pan, praise Google's book deal:

"Tuesday's legal sparring came on the deadline for written arguments about a $125 million settlement that would entrust Google with a digital database containing millions of copyright-protected books, including titles no longer being published.

But at least one more key document is expected before U.S. District Judge Denny Chin holds an Oct. 7 hearing in New York to review the settlement. The Justice Department has until Sept. 18 to file its brief, which may provide some inkling on whether antitrust regulators have determined if the deal would hurt competition.

The settlement, reached last October, has raised the specter of Google becoming even more powerful than it already has become as the owner of the Internet's most popular search engine and most lucrative advertising network.

Those concerns represented the crux of a 32-page brief written by Silicon Valley attorney Gary Reback, who helped the Justice Department pursue an antitrust case against Microsoft's bundling of personal computer software in the 1990s.

Reback filed the brief Tuesday on behalf of the Open Book Alliance, which includes Microsoft, Yahoo, Internet bookseller Amazon.com Inc., other companies and nonprofit organizations. Microsoft and Yahoo, which compete with Google in search, also filed separate arguments; Amazon submitted its protest last week.

The alliance contends Google conspired with the author and publishing groups that sued the Mountain View-based company to make it more difficult for competitors to create similar indexes of digital books. The alliance contends that competitive barriers would empower Google, authors and publishers to the raise prices of digital books well above the current standard of about $10 per volume.

"The publishing industry desperately wants to raise the retail price point for digital books," Reback wrote for the alliance. "The book settlement permits them to achieve that by working with Google.""

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9AJEG6O2

Google books deal battle heats up; BBC News, 9/4/09

Maggie Shiels via BBC News; Google books deal battle heats up:

"The most vocal critics of the deal have largely banded together to form the Open Book Alliance. It was set up by the non-profit Internet Archive, which has its own book-scanning project and has to date digitised 500,000 books.

"Just as Gutenberg's invention of the printing press more than 700 years ago ushered in a new era of knowledge sharing, the mass digitisation of books promises to revolutionise how we read and discover books," said Peter Brantley of the alliance.

"But a digital library controlled by a single company and small group of publishers would inevitably lead to higher prices and subpar services for consumers, libraries, scholars and students."...

Many believe the issue of rights over out-of-print books would best be solved by legislation and not the courts.

"It is never a good thing for private parties to make deals for the public good," said Martin Manley, the founder of Alibris.com, an online store which sells used, rare and out-of-print books.
"The public good is meant to be solved by regulators who are somewhat accountable and by legislators who are wholly accountable," Mr Manley told BBC News."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8237271.stm

Google brought to book over digital library; Times, 9/5/09

Mike Harvey via Times; Google brought to book over digital library:

"A US district judge named Denny Chin is on the verge of becoming one of the most important men in the history of publishing. On October 7 in a New York courtroom he will preside over a “fairness hearing” for a deal between Google and US publishers and authors to put millions of books online.

The 55-year-old Hong Kong-born judge presided over the trial of Bernard Madoff, sentencing the fraudster to 150 years in prison. The Google books settlement case is likely to send shockwaves even further afield.

Google yesterday launched a staunch defence of its plans to become the world’s librarian and bookseller. The internet giant is in the middle of a project to scan and index the world’s literary heritage. It has already digitised more than 10 million volumes in more than 100 languages and has agreements with libraries around the world to scan millions more.

Google says that the project will make a treasure trove of forgotten and out-of-print books available to anyone with an internet connection. Critics say that mankind’s “last library” should not be in the hands of a commercial enterprise."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6822739.ece

Deadline looms as opposition mounts to Google Book Settlement; National Post, 9/3/09

Mark Medley via National Post; Deadline looms as opposition mounts to Google Book Settlement:

Canadian authors debate whether to opt out

"Google's mission statement is at once both ambitious and admirable: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Keeping with that spirit, in 2004 the Internet giant launched what became known as Google Book Search -- "an enhanced card catalogue of the world's books" -- and began digitizing the collections of several libraries and universities, including Oxford and Harvard. It would allow users to search through a massive online library and view sections of the books, ranging from snippets to the entire text. More than seven million titles -- perhaps as many as 10 million -- have been scanned thus far. There was just one problem: Google didn't receive permission from the books' copyright holders. A class-action lawsuit and years of negotiations ensued, leading to the landmark Google Book Settlement reached last October. Authors, publishers, agents and lawyers have spent much of the last year analyzing the complex agreement and trying to figure out what it means for them. It's a quest to disseminate knowledge or a deal with the devil, depending on which side you're on. But one thing is clear: Opposition is growing more vocal in advance of tomorrow's deadline to opt out of the controversial agreement.

"If a complete stranger came and took your car without permission and took it for a drive, what would you call that?" asks Katherine Gordon, one of several Canadian authors leading the charge against the settlement. "It would be theft. So how is this any different?"

On Tuesday, Gordon and several other Canadian authors launched an online campaign opposing the settlement, taking Google to task for "blatant disregard for Canadian legal copyright ownership" and accusing them of keeping authors in the dark, leaving "millions of authors ... unaware their rights will be seriously compromised after Friday.""

http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=1957311

Amazon.com Says Congress Should Address Google Book; Bloomberg.com, 9/2/09

Susan Decker and David Glovin via Bloomberg.com; Amazon.com Says Congress Should Address Google Book:

"Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest online retailer, told a U.S. court that Congress, not Google Inc., should be responsible for establishing rules on how to deal with digital copies of books.

An agreement Google reached last year with some U.S. publishers and authors “invades the prerogatives of Congress and attempts to legislate a private solution to a problem that can only truly be solved with across-the-board changes to the copyright law that affect everyone,” Amazon.com said in a court filing yesterday that set out its legal arguments for opposing the settlement...

The case is Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 05-cv-8136, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aPt6KIFwLzH8