Google's count of 130 million books is probably bunk; ArsTechnica.com, 8/9/10

Jon Stokes, ArsTechnica.com; Google's count of 130 million books is probably bunk:

""After we exclude serials, we can finally count all the books in the world," wrote Google's Leonid Taycher in a GBS blog post. "There are 129,864,880 of them. At least until Sunday."

It's a large, official-sounding number, and the explanation for how Google arrived at it involves a number of acronyms and terms that will be unfamiliar to most of those who read the post. It's also quite likely to be complete bunk...

But the problem with Google's count, as is clear from the GBS count post itself, is that GBS's metadata collection is a riddled with errors of every sort. Or, as linguist and GBS critic Goeff Nunberg put it last year in a blog post, Google's metadata is "train wreck: a mish-mash wrapped in a muddle wrapped in a mess."

Indeed, a simple Google search for "google books metadata" (sans quotes) will turn up mostly criticisms and caterwauling by dismayed linguists, librarians, and other scholars at the terrible state of Google's metadata. Erroneous dates are pervasive, to the point that you can find many GBS references to historical figures and technologies in books that Google dates to well before the people or technologies existed. The classifications are a mess, and Nunberg's presentation points out that the first 10 classifications for Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" classify it as Juvenile Nonfiction, Poetry, Fiction, Literary Criticism, Biography & Autobiography, Counterfeits and Counterfeiting. Then there are authors that are missing or misattributed, and titles that bear no relation to the linked work."

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/googles-count-of-130-million-books-is-probably-bunk.ars

5 Ways The Google Book Settlement Will Change The Future of Reading; io9.com, 4/2/10

io9.com; 5 Ways The Google Book Settlement Will Change The Future of Reading:

"1. It may become harder to get information online about books from writers you love...

2. You will find yourself reading free books online, by authors who have disappeared. And Google will make money when you do...

3. Google will be competing with Apple and Amazon and everybody else to be your favorite online bookseller...

4. Google will be competing with Apple and Amazon and everybody else to be your favorite online bookseller...

5. Pulp science fiction will make a comeback in ways you might not expect."

http://io9.com/5501426/5-ways-the-google-book-settlement-will-change-the-future-of-reading

[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

Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?; Techdirt, 10/16/09

Mike Masnick, Techdirt; Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?:

"Some publishers are refusing to allow libraries to lend out their ebooks...which makes me wonder why the publishers have any say in the matter. Thanks to the right of first sale, a library should be able to lend out an ebook if it's legally purchased it without having to get the publisher's permission."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091015/1511426550.shtml

Google Books Is Not a Library; Huffington Post, 10/13/09

Pamela Samuelson, Huffington Post; Google Books Is Not a Library:

"Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire...

Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search...

If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive.

Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved...

Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same...

Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy...

Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html

Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending; New York Times, 10/15/09

Motoko Rich, New York Times; Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending:

"Pam Sandlian Smith, library director of the Rangeview Library District, which serves a suburban community north of Denver, said that instead of purchasing a set number of digital copies of a book, she would prefer to buy one copy and pay a nominal licensing fee each time a patron downloaded it.

Publishers, inevitably, are nervous about allowing too much of their intellectual property to be offered free. Brian Murray, the chief executive of HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide, said Ms. Smith’s proposal was “not a sustainable model for publishers or authors.”

Some librarians object to the current pricing model because they often pay more for e-books than do consumers who buy them on Amazon or in Sony’s online store. Publishers generally charge the same price for e-books as they do for print editions, but online retailers subsidize the sale price of best sellers by marking them down to $9.99."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/books/15libraries.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=libraries%20rich&st=cse

"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

Privacy Missing From Google Books Settlement; PC World, 8/28/09

Robert McMillan via PC World; Privacy Missing From Google Books Settlement:

"If Google digitizes the world's books, how will it keep track of what you read?

That's one of the unanswered questions that librarians and privacy experts are grappling with as Google attempts to settle a long-running lawsuit by publishers and copyright holders and move ahead with its effort to digitize millions of books, known as the Google Books Library Project.

For librarians, many of whom are working with Google to digitize their collections of books, it's a thorny question. That's because librarians and the online world have different standards for dealing with user information. Many libraries routinely delete borrower information, and organizations such as the American Library Association have fought hard to preserve the privacy of their patrons in the face of laws such as the U.S. Patriot Act.

But now, as more and more titles become available in Google Book Search, it's not clear whether digital readers will enjoy the same privacy protections they have at the library. "Which way are we going to go?" said Michael Zimmer, a professor from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. "Is this service going to be an extension of the library, or an extension of Web searching?""

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/171089/privacy_missing_from_google_books_settlement.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/

Tech groups join fight against Google books; London Times, 8/21/09

Mike Harvey via London Times; Tech groups join fight against Google books:

"Critics say that the deal gives Google the unimpeded ability to set prices for libraries, once they scan books and put them on the Internet. They also say that it would also allow Google — and only Google — to digitise so-called orphan works, which could pose an antitrust concern. Orphan works are books or other materials that are still covered by US copyright law, but on which ownership rights are not clear.

Google took issue with the criticism. Gabriel Stricker, a spokesman for the company said: "The agreement is not exclusive. If improved by the court, it will expand access to millions of books in the US."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article6805993.ece

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

At NYPL, No “Smackdown” This Time As Panel Pushes For Google Book Search Settlement; Publishers Weekly, 7/29/09

Andrew Albanese via Publishers Weekly; At NYPL, No “Smackdown” This Time As Panel Pushes For Google Book Search Settlement:

"In what New York Public Library (NYPL) director David Ferriero called a return to the scene of the “Google smackdown,” the sold-out November 2005 event where the initial lawsuits over Google Book Search were first debated, panelists yesterday took questions from Ferriero and audience members and defended the pending Google Book Search Settlement.

The two-hour panel, "Expanding Access to Books: Implications of the Google Books Settlement Agreement,” featured David Drummond, senior v-p of corporate development & chief legal officer at Google; Richard Sarnoff, co-chairman, Bertelsmann, authors Jim Gleick and Peter Petre, and attorney and library legal advisor Jonathan Band, author of A Guide for the Perplexed: Libraries and the Google Library Project Settlement. The panel kicks off a week of events in New York as the settlement enters a critical final month before a September 4 deadline for rightsholders to opt-out or object to the deal."

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6673684.html

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

Legal advocates push for Google Books privacy; CNet News, 7/23/09

Elinor Mills via CNet News; Legal advocates push for Google Books privacy:

"Google should promise to protect the privacy of consumers with its Book Search service, the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Samuelson Law Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley Law said in a letter to the search giant on Thursday.

"Under its current design, Google Book Search keeps track of what books readers search for and browse, what books they read, and even what they 'write' down in the margins," the groups wrote in a letter (PDF) to Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt.

"Given the long and troubling history of government and third-party efforts to compel libraries and booksellers to turn over records about readers, it is essential that Google Books incorporate strong privacy protections in both the architecture and policies of Google Book Search," the letter said. "Without these, Google Books could become a one-stop shop for government and civil-litigant fishing expeditions into the private lives of Americans.""

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10294519-93.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

Japanese e-library project could lose out to Google Book Search without government flex; Mainichi Daily News, 7/24/09

Op-Ed: Mainichi Daily News; Japanese e-library project could lose out to Google Book Search without government flex:

"Imagine being able to read and search all the books in the world on the Internet. Such convenience has taken a step closer to reality, thanks to U.S. search engine giant Google's new Book Search service. However, it may be too early to rejoice over the feat without reservation.

Under the U.S. copyright law's fair use provision, literary and other works can be used without right-holders' permission for public purposes, and Google's electronic library project is based on this provision. And, while it may serve the public good to allow people to use literary documents amassed at conventional libraries, U.S. publishers have opposed the publication of books on the Internet without their permission and brought the case into the court.

The lawsuit ended up in a settlement and, if the U.S. court approves the settlement, Google will be entitled to launch an e-library project for a fee for books the company deems out of print or unavailable in exchange for a royalty. The settlement, however, applies outside the U.S. as well, under international copyright protection conventions.

The case has wreaked havoc on book publishers worldwide since right-holders will be automatically incorporated into the settlement unless they specifically opt out.

In the meantime, Japan's National Diet Library (NDL) is also accelerating the digitization of its book collection. The move follows a recent revision to Japan's Copyright Law, allowing the NDL to digitize books without right-holders' permission, as well as a large budget increase for digitization of books under the supplementary budget.

However, one needs to obtain permission from individual right-holders before publicizing digitized books online in Japan. If things are left as is, Google is certain to become dominant in the e-library project.

There's also a concern from a cultural perspective. Since Google Book Search mainly deals with book collections at libraries in the U.S., search results would inevitably tend to show more books published in the U.S. It would not only help expand the influence of the English language but could also prompt further prevalence of American ways of thinking and interpretation around the world.

Digitization of books and their distribution on the Web is an issue that relates to the concept of soft power, with which countries aspire to gain a greater voice in the international community through attaining support for their unique culture and values.

Online distribution for a fee has already become common in the music industry. It is hoped that the Japanese government will flexibly proceed with legal revisions so as to facilitate online distribution of books' content in Japan, including the e-library project."

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/editorial/news/20090723p2a00m0na015000c.html

‘Drop Internet Issues From ACTA, Add Public Interest’; Intellectual Property Watch, 7/17/09

Intellectual Property Watch; ‘Drop Internet Issues From ACTA, Add Public Interest’:

"Nine organisations representing the technology industry, libraries, digital rights and privacy interests have sent a letter to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk urging that issues related to the internet be dropped from negotiations for an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). They also demanded that in the secretive ACTA negotiation, negotiating documents be made available to those representing the public interest, and that advisory committees be created to include civil society and internet-related industry interests.

The demands are based on information that rights holders alone have had access to the negotiating texts, and the fact that leaked versions of the draft treaty text showed ACTA “could harm a significant portion of the economy as well as consumer interests.” USTR officials, who have claimed the talks are transparent, are at an undisclosed location in Morocco on 16-17 July for the latest round of closed-door negotiations of the plurilateral treaty.

The 14 July letter is available here [pdf]."

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/07/17/%e2%80%98drop-internet-issues-from-acta-add-public-interest%e2%80%99/

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

U.S. Presses Antitrust Inquiry Into Google Book Settlement; New York Times, 6/10/09

Miguel Helft via New York Times; U.S. Presses Antitrust Inquiry Into Google Book Settlement:

"In a sign that the government has stepped up its antitrust investigation of a class-action settlement between Google and groups representing authors and publishers, the Justice Department has issued formal requests for information to several of the parties involved.

The Justice Department has sent the requests, called civil investigative demands, to various parties, including Google, the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild and individual publishers, said Michael J. Boni, a partner at Boni & Zack, who represented the Authors Guild in negotiations with Google.

“They are asking for a lot of information,” Mr. Boni said. “It signals that they are serious about the antitrust implications of the settlement.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/technology/companies/10book.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20book&st=cse

Critics: Google Book Deal a Monopoly, Privacy Debacle; Wired.com, 6/2/09

Ryan Singel via Wired.com; Critics: Google Book Deal a Monopoly, Privacy Debacle:

"Google set out to digitize the world’s books in 2003, got sued for its trouble in 2005 by publishers and authors wanting to make money from the efforts, and in 2007 came to a proposed settlement that gives Google the rights to scan, index, display and even sell millions of books that are in copyright. So far its Google Book Search program has digitized around 10 million books from the some of the nation’s most prestigious university libraries, but only small portions of most in-copyright books are shown online currently.

(Learn more with Wired.com’s Google Book Search Settlement FAQ.)

Even the deal’s critics — such as New York University professor James Grimmelmann — admit that the deal sounds great: Books in copyright but out-of-print become available for viewing and purchase by the public, and researchers and students at universities will get access to the full technology.

But Grimmelmann, whose Google Book Search research has been funded by Microsoft, says that the Google deal gives it exclusive rights to books that are in copyright whose authors can’t be found — so-called orphan works — and that any competitor who wants to try the same project could get sued for huge sums of money.

That makes a monopoly, Grimmelmann told conference goers at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Washington, D.C. Tuesday."

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/google_books/