After Michigan Amendments to Google Deal, Library Groups Issue Updated “Guide for the Perplexed”

Meanwhile, concerns about book search among librarians gain ground; DOJ inquiry continues

Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 6/17/2009

Go back to the
Academic Newswire
for more stories

ALA, ARL, ACRL sponsor guide
Can pricing issues be arbitrated?
Antitrust questions remain

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

In A Guide for the Perplexed Part II: The Amended Google-Michigan Agreement, attorney Jonathan Band, a consultant to the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), has updated his analysis of the controversial Google Book Search settlement, focusing on the arbitration and other opportunities unveiled in the agreement signed last month by the University of Michigan, a pioneer partner in Google’s scan plan.

LJ’s report last month covered the high points, notably the role of Michigan and other Google partners as stand-ins for the library and higher education community regarding pricing and arbitration, but Band’s paper—a follow-up to the longer November 13, 2008 “Guide for the Perplexed,” which focused on the settlement—offers a thorough summary of the various provisions, along with some commentary in the footnotes.

For example, Band notes that, if the partner libraries receive discounts on the institutional subscription similar to that Michigan will receive, “they may not have the financial incentive" to initiatie their option to challenge Google's subscription prices for libraries in general.

Michigan would receive a free institutional subscription for 25 years, assuming that the university makes its collection available for scanning, as it has, and that its FTE student body not exceed 60,000. After 25 years, Google would provided the school with a discount of one FTE for each 50 books scanned, which means that Michigan would keep the free subscription if it provided a total of 3 million books to be scanned, a number that it has already exceeded.

Library concerns rising
Meanwhile, concerns from the library community about the potential abuse of monopoly have made it to TIME magazine, which just published an article headlined Librarians Fighting Google's Book Deal.

"This is a monumental settlement that's at stake, and for the government to show this kind of attention is heartening," says Lee Van Orsdel, dean of university libraries at Grand Valley State University, told the magazine. Van Orsdel, who co-writes LJ’s annual periodicals price survey, pointed to the impact on pricing after consolidation among scholarly journals.

While TIME quoted settlement supporters as suggesting critics’ concerns would be met, the Department of Justice is inquiring into the settlement. That is not routine, attorney John Briggs, an antitrust expert not part of the case, suggested to the magazine.

The deadline for authors to opt out of the settlement and for groups to submit comments to the court has been extended to September 4, 2009, with a federal court hearing scheduled for October 7.

Read more Newswire stories:

Medical Students, Other Student Groups Endorse Open Access

Fallout from the Hoax Article: Editor Resigns, OA Publishers Respond

At BYU, Kindle Program on Hold, But University of Nebraska-Omaha’s Program Going Strong

Stanford University Libraries Cut 15%, Lose Staff, Hours, Materials Budget

Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Awards Will Impact Academic Libraries