Samuelson Says She Has Same Pricing, Privacy Concerns About Google Settlement
Would smaller database change the market for libraries?
Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 11/18/2009
| Go back to the Academic Newswire for more stories |
- Google's Clancy maintains defense
- Open Book Alliance warns that libraries will be at Google's mercy
- ALA response coming
Though the value (and cost) to libraries of the database of books scanned by Google surely has changed now that most foreign works have been excluded in the revised settlement, the framework for deciding that price remains unchanged—and that’s enough for some opponents of the original settlement to maintain their opposition.
In a panel Monday at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, University of California, Berkeley law professor Pamela Samuelson—a steady critic of the original settlement—said the revised settlement still didn’t offer “meaningful constraints on pricing of institutional subscriptions,” according to Media Bistro.
And, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others have said, the settlement lacks privacy protections. “While I think that there were some substantial changes that were made to it, it more had to do with getting foreign rights holders out of the settlement and trying to respond at least in part to issues that the Department of Justice raised,” Samuelson said.
Google's reponse
Google Books point man Dan Clancy, another member of the panel, essentially reprised previous comments that there other other alternatives to gain out-of-print books and that privacy will be discussed outside the settlement.
More OBA criticism
That was not enough for the Open Book Alliance (OBA), whose co-founder Peter Brantley stated, "Academic libraries and independent researchers are still at the mercy of pricing from Google’s one stop book shop. This is a for-profit play by a profit maximizing company. Do we really want the card catalogue of the future running advertising?"
“The settlement still allows Google to purchase a monopoly on digital books,” added Brantley.
He wasn't impressed with the revision: "Instead of negotiating with stakeholders, Google cuts them out. For all the talk of building a new Library of Alexandria, when foreign language publishers asked Google hard questions the response wasn’t flexibility or concessions. Instead, the squeaky wheel was amputated.”
The OBA includes Google competitors Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon, as well as consumer groups, some authors, the Internet Archive, and two library organizations: SLA and the New York Library Association.
ALA response coming
The American Library Association (ALA) and associated library groups have yet to make a statement, but Corey Williams, associate director of the Office of Government Relations, told LJ that ALA has enlisted legal consultant Jonathan Band to write “Guide to the Perplexed, Part III,” an analysis of the revised settlement (also see coverage of "A Guide for the Perplexed Part II").
ALA will determine its posture after further discussion with members, she said.
Williams did note that the narrowing of the database “does raise the question of how attractive the product may be to potential customers.”
And, she said, while “our interest was piqued” by the statement in the amended agreement that the Book Rights Registry could increase (from one) the number of free terminals made available at public libraries, details on how that would work remain unclear.
Contact the author: noder@reedbusiness.com
Read more Newswire stories:
OLE Project Gains Support of Kuali Foundation
Five Colleges MA Consortium Plans Tech Consolidation
ProQuest and Scribd Partner on Dissertations and Theses Marketplace
NYPL President LeClerc To Retire in 2011
Columns:
Finding Inspiration in Higher Education | From the Bell Tower
The Battle of the Books—Again | Peer to Peer Review
Dialog lends support to laid-off librarians, Auto-Graphics partnering with ChiliFresh and Index Data, New platform for IGI Global, and more
People
Best Sellers in Psychology
