Library Groups: DOJ Filing “Completely” Changed Landscape for Google Settlement

Respond to criticism from Margolis; also, ARL prepares chart of filings.

Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 9/30/2009

• DOJ leads to renegotiation
• Settlement still on hold
• Charts explain landscape of filings

The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) have responded to criticism in August from New York State Librarian Bernard Margolis, who chastised the groups for not advocating library issues relating to the Google Book Settlement more forcefully. Among other things, Margolis urged the groups to lobby for increased library access to the book database under development by Google.

Representatives of the library groups noted that the letter they sent to  the Department of Justice (DOJ) referenced by Margolis did not address all concerns they raised in detail with the federal court overseeing the case. And, they added, their concerns likely have more weight.

“Now that the Department of Justice has weighed in, the landscape has changed completely,” wrote Mary Ellen Davis, ACRL executive director, Keith Fiels, ALA executive director, and Charles Lowry, ARL executive director. “The DOJ brief establishes a framework that has caused the litigants to return to the table to renegotiate the settlement. Given this new opportunity to affect the outcome, it is our intention to continue to work together and separately as associations to secure additional low cost and/or free access for the public through public, school and academic libraries.”

In its “Statement of Interest", the DOJ recommended rejection of “the Proposed Settlement in its current form” and encouraged further negotiations.  That has since postponed the fairness hearing scheduled for October 7.

Summarizing the filings
Meanwhile, ARL Law & Policy Fellow Brandon Butler has prepared a document summarizing some key information about the hundreds of filings that have been submitted to the federal district court.

Butler explains why the charts have so many footnotes:

Please excuse the unavoidable simplification and subjectivity involved in compiling and categorizing this material. The determination of who is a “Key” opponent or supporter was based primarily on whether the filing represented an institution or entity whose views likely readers of this piece would be curious to know. Categories such as “Anti-user” and “Anti-competitor” are often difficult to tease apart, and many filings expressed multiple, complex arguments that were distilled into a single position. Furthermore, some parties expressed important concerns about the Settlement, but chose to urge careful government oversight rather than opposing the Settlement entirely. In fact, this is the position taken by members of the Library Associations (of which ARL is one) in their Comments to the court. Filers with reservations and concerns are listed in their own chart, separate from the supporters and opponents. Because the concerns of parties with reservations were generally identical to those of the opponents, these views are collected together in the chart on page 3. Finally, while many rightsholders and interested observers have announced their views publicly, these charts represent only the views of those parties who filed with the court.

Contact the author: noder@reedbusiness.com

Read more Newswire stories:

Ithaka Reports on How Long To Keep Print Journals

As Digital Texts Dominate, New Options for Print Arise

At Emory Libraries, 29 Positions Are Cut

In a Win for Fair Use, Joyce Estate to Pay Author after Excessive Copyright Threats

IMLS Grants To Fund Digital Libraries, Academic Library ROI Study, More

Columns:
We Need a New Sputnik | From the Bell Tower

Defining Moments: How We Talk about Books and Libraries | Peer to Peer Review

People

OhioLINK partnering with Index Data on discovery; ProQuest marketing Dissertations and Theses—UK & Ireland

Best Sellers in Education