Urban Libraries Council Calls for Major Changes in Google Settlement

Single terminal, monopoly, privacy, printing charge at issue

Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 08/24/2009

• Public libraries not represented in settlement
• ULC doesn't oppose settlement
• Wants changes before it proceeds

(For a set of links, go to LibraryJournal.com/GoogleBookSearchSettlement.)

The Urban Libraries Council (ULC), a member organization of medium and large public libraries—an important constituency affected by the Google Book Search settlement—has called for major changes in Google’s announced plan to provide just one free terminal per public library building and in regulating a potential monopoly.

“This is a pivotal moment in the history of access to recorded information, not unlike the introduction of moveable type or the birth of the Internet,” wrote Susan Benton, the Urban Libraries Council’s (ULC) new president and CEO, in a letter to the federal court overseeing the settlement. “It is important, therefore, that the needs of the public at large shape the thinking of those responsible for guiding this extraordinary advance.”

ULC does not oppose the settlement but asked that the court require the parties—Google and plaintiffs Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers—“to address the issues raised in this document before approving the proposed settlement.” A hearing is set for October 7, while submissions to the court are accepted until September 4.

Single terminal?
“The settlement’s commitment to one free terminal per public library building is admirable but unworkable,” ULC said, echoing previous criticism.

Rather, ULC suggested that “Google and the Rightsholders should provide to each public library a Free Public Access Service that can be implemented by the library through its own or a cooperative electronic network, serving the in-library needs of many public library users.”

Also, ULC proposed “an Institutional Subscription Model for Public Libraries”—a product not yet envisioned by Google, which plans a subscription model for academic libraries. 

“American adults, once they have left the university setting, return to their public libraries expecting ease of access, minimum costs, and wide-ranging options, both electronically and physically,” ULC said. 

It did not specify whether the subscription should include remote access—which is not available for all public library databases and something that Google’s settlement partners currently oppose for public libraries.

Monopoly issues
ULC, like others, is warning of a monopoly. “Google and the Book Rights Registry will control the market for delivery of millions of books, without much danger of effective competition,” ULC said. “While there is no present indication that the parties to the settlement will abuse their position, there is also no check upon them. Public Library Representation on the Book Rights Registry should be mandated by the Court as an effective way to address this concern.”

Others, among them University of California academics, have offered several suggestions regarding pricing, including having the court monitor the settlement.

Privacy issues
The settlement has been criticized for not addressing privacy concerns, though Google said it was not the appropriate venue. ULC wants to make sure that Google Book Search respects confidentiality, as nearly all states require.

“Public Access Service in the public library setting should include a provision for Anonymous Access to the Database, in order to respect reader privacy and conform to local legal requirements,” ULC said.

Printing charge
While the settlement would allow Google to collect a per-page charge for limited printing from the database, ULC said that posed practical obstacles for libraries as well as philosophical ones.

“Public library users, whatever their personal economic circumstances, have long expected to find, read, and borrow books without paying a fee, under the library’s right of first sale,” ULC said. “If they wish to copy a few pages for personal reference, they expect to pay only nominal photocopying fees, not license charges, under the fair use doctrine. Many of the books in the database are not under copyright protection. Access to these books in the public domain should be preserved in the new environment.”

In calling for the requirement of limited free printing, ULC said the provision would “acknowledge the public role in the creation of the database now to be used for private commercial purposes,” given that many of the books were scanned from libraries.