Warning of Abuse of Monopoly, Library Groups Ask Court To Closely Monitor Google Settlement
Google Book Search an advance, but access, privacy, intellectual freedom in jeopardy.
Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 5/4/2009
| Go back to the Academic Newswire for more stories |
- Don’t oppose settlement
- Could restructure publishing, change libraries
- Warning about costs, intellectual freedom, privacy
(For a set of links, go to LibraryJournal.com/GoogleBookSearchSettlement.)
Three major library groups, in comments (PDF) filed today in federal district court, say they don’t oppose the pending Google Book Search Settlement, but warned that high costs and opaque controls “could compromise fundamental library values such as equity of access to information, patron privacy, and intellectual freedom.”
Given that the Settlement might “also lead to a restructuring of the publishing industry and a dramatic change to the nature of libraries,” the American Library Association (ALA), Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), and Association of Research Libraries (ARL) asked the court to “vigorously exercise”—perhaps for years—“its jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement.”
While the class action settlement in a copyright case might have been the only feasible way to create a database with full text of as many as 20 million books, the Settlement is structured so that authors, publishers, and Google—not the public nor the library community—have “enormous control” over the database and registry, the brief states.
The court filing was authored by attorney Jonathan Band, who last November wrote A Guide for the Perplexed: Libraries and the Google Library Project Settlement.
Tensions among goalsWhile the Settlement states that the goals include “realization of revenue at market rates” for Rightsholders as well as “the realization of broad access,” without any meaningful competition, “the Registry and Google can set the price of the subscription at a profit maximizing point beyond the reach of many libraries,” the library groups warn.
Pricing will be based on the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) users, and lower prices can be charged for discipline-based subsets of the ISD (institutional subscription database). While the filing acknowledges that Google's current business model, based on advertising, seeks to maximize access, that “business model, at least with respect to the institutional subscription, may change, and at some point in the future it may seek a profit maximizing price structure that has the effect of reducing access.”
Pricing questionsThe document points to the STM market, in which pricing has been “based on low volume and high prices.” Moreover, while the Settlement says the price of institutional subscriptions should be based in part on the prices of “comparable products and services,” there are no comparable products or services. The library organizations warn that the arbitrators “might erroneously treat online journals as comparable products.”
Only Google and the Registry can enter into a dispute resolution mechanism regard pricing of the institutional subscription. There’s no role for libraries.
Differential impact among librariesThe Settlement will heighten inequalities among libraries, the filing suggests, noting that single public access terminals Google will provide may “satisfy the needs of a lightly trafficked branch of a public library system,” but would be insufficient for higher education institutions and most public libraries.
Also, given that “83% of public libraries do not have sufficient terminals to meet existing needs,” they won’t have “enough terminals to access the ISD effectively, either through an institutional subscription or the public access service.”
Warnings about privacy
Though libraries consider privacy a core value, the Settlement is silent on how much information Google will retain about users accessing the database or printing out pages. By contrast, the library groups point out, the libraries that provided Google books to scan—and in turn received their own digital copies—developed an extensive security implementation plan.
While Google has stated it will work to protect user privacy, the filing notes that “Google and the Registry should develop strong policies to protect personally identifiable information, and provide users with clear notice describing those policies.”
Limits to the database
The filing states that, because the Settlement allows rightsholder of a work within another rightsholder’s book to act independently, books in the ISD may lack graphics, contributions, and other element.
Also, because the Settlement does not apply to pictorial works, photographs and illustrations from a different rightsholder will be blacked out. Given that rightsholders can remove a book from Google Book Search, or exclude it from the ISD, and Google must include only 85% of the books it has scanned, the database will be limited.
Excluded books
Because of that, certain books may be excluded, the filing warns. Google could find itself “under pressure from state and local governments or interest groups to censor books that discuss topics such as alternative lifestyles or evolution,” given that minors will be able to access 20% of the text from home.
While pressure on public libraries to exclude books is a local phenomenon, political pressure on Google would affect a national database, the library groups contend.
Given the history of foreign governments pressuring search engines to remove links to web sites the governments didn’t like, Google too could find itself under pressure to exclude books. (While the service is aimed only at those in the continental United States, the filing points out that “users in other countries can employ technologies to deceive Google’s servers concerning their location.”)
Innovation limited?
While the settlement “could permit the development of competitive and innovative services,” for example a sublicense to Amazon for access to 1 million books—thus offering perhaps the most useful books to researchers via the Kindle—such licenses are not required, the brief warns.
Also, it’s not clear that the Registry will truly represent the interests of members, the library groups note, observing that some class members (authors) prefer maximization of public access to books.
The solution: oversight
The library associations ask the court to “exercise this authority vigorously to ensure the broadest possible public benefit from the services the Settlement enables.”
Among the requests: libraries or other possible institutional subscribers must be able to request the Court to review pricing of institutional subscriptions; anyone should be able to request review of the Registry’s refusal to license copyrights to books on the same terms available to Google; any class member should be able to ask for a review of how the Registry selects its board of directors; any user should be able to ask the Court to request information about privacy policies and compliance.
Going forward: major impact
The document concludes with the observation that dramatic changes are afoot.
"With these comments, the Library Associations have identified certain foreseeable problems that may require this Court’s intervention in the future," it states. "The Settlement, however, is potentially so far-reaching that its full implications are unknowable at this time. While the Settlement’s impact might be limited to the creation of a research tool of use only to serious scholars, the Settlement might also lead to a restructuring of the publishing industry and a dramatic change to the nature of libraries. The Court should be prepared to exercise whatever oversight is necessary, for as long as necessary, to maximize the public benefit from the services enabled by the Settlement.”
Read more Newswire stories:
New York Law School to Launch Google Book Search Web Site
Consortium Asks Journal Vendors for Price Reductions
Amazon Launches Kindle DX
Academic Librarian Salary Survey Released
Columns:
Fine Tuning Higher Education From the Bell Tower
The Vanishing Book Review Peer to Peer Review
People
Best Sellers in Botany-Zoology
