On Eve of Google Book Search Settlement Hearing, Some Library Voices
CDL's Anderson urges support, while Coyle salutes DOJ
Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 02/17/2010
| Go back to the Academic Newswire for more stories |
- Anderson: Google deal in context of vendor projects
- Coyle: time for Congress to act?
- ARL releases comments
- Grimmelmann: Public Access Service jeopardized?
As a fairness hearing in federal court on the Google Book Search Settlement approaches tomorrow, some in the library world are weighing in. Ivy Anderson, Director of Collections, California Digital Library, writes a long post in support of the settlement and casting doubt on some of the claims made for it:
But let’s be honest: though few seem willing to admit it, revitalizing the world’s heritage of books for a digital age – a task that many considered impossible only a few short years ago – appears within reach today almost entirely due to Google’s enterprising vision... The plain fact is that despite the idealistic adjurations of some, the resources required to digitize our cultural book heritage on a grand scale are not likely to be marshaled in the U.S. by libraries and the public sector alone.
She acknowledges criticisms of Google’s approach but says it’s an argument about means, not ends. And she suggests that those alarmed by the role of Google as partner should look at other products of partnerships, such as The Early English Books Online (EEBO) database marketed by ProQuest.
Responding to critics
As for arguments about the settlement, Anderson questions whether the Institutional Subscription would become too expensive, suggesting that three checks on the institutional subscription price should mitigate price-gouging.
She suggests that the settlement is not anti-competitive because—in what she acknowledges may be a controversial assertion—“GBS is almost single-handedly responsible for the ebook explosion that is swirling all around us, with new entrants popping up every day.”
And if it dies?
And if the settlement is not approved, she suggests that it wouldn’t be a crisis:
The benefits that we initially envisioned – improved discovery and full text search of our vast legacy collections, and broad public availability of works that are out of copyright or otherwise released by their copyright owners – will still be realized. The fears of some Settlement objectors – of monopolistic pricing and the forced commercialization of materials that are long out-of-print – will melt away like the elusive Vancouver snow. Participating libraries may still choose to undertake novel services, without the unwelcome restrictions imposed by the Settlement. As long as Google and others continue to partner with us, we will go forward in reinvigorating our collections for a new digital age.
The Google Settlement is fundamentally about whether Google and rights holders will be allowed to implement a particular set of business models for a certain set of books. I believe the Settlement should be approved, because it will create new and valuable services for libraries as well as consumers. But many of Google’s participating libraries have their own plans for these books, plans that do not ultimately depend on the outcome of the Settlement. The greatest risk for libraries if the Settlement is not approved is that further legal setbacks might lead Google to abandon its interest in library digitization altogether.
And, she asserts, projects like the HathiTrust will create “the digital library of the future,” so “approval of the Settlement is not a make or break event for libraries.”
Coyle's concerns
Meanwhile, librarian/consultant Karen Coyle, a critic of the settlement, salutes the Department of Justicies' criticisms and wonders what's next:
I predict that if the suit is rejected we will have orphan works legislation sooner rather than later, since this suit has clearly high-lighted the need for such legislation. The copyright violation lawsuit against Google, however, remains. I fear that the settlement has poisoned the air for a fair use decision. We've seen the sausage being made, and it will be harder than ever to approach this project with an open and fair mind.Commenters on her post were not optimistic.
What can be done? Well, in France, when faced with a take-over of their cultural heritage by Google (their words, not mine), the government responded by giving libraries a large sum so that they can do the digitizing themselves; a kind of "by the people, for the people" digitization project. Is it too much to hope that could happen here?
In addition, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has released its own summary of the second round of comments filed by the Department of Justice, mostly detailing new objections.
A caution from Grimmelmann
New York Law School's James Grimmelmann, a close follower of the settlement, has been writing about it on his blog, The Laboratorium. One recent post concerns Clause 16 of the Proposed Final Judgment, which allows the Book Rights Registry and Google to "amend the Amended Settlement Agreement without notice to or approval of the Court, but only if such amendment does not impair the rights of the Amended Settlement Class under the Amended Settlement Agreement."
"This passage," writes Grimmelmann, "appears capable of great mischief. The Registry and Google could agree, for example, to eliminate the Public Access Service."
Contact the author: noder@reedbusiness.com
Read more Newswire stories:
Objectors Outnumber Supporters in First Half of Google Settlement Fairness Hearing
Interview with 2010 ACRL Academic/Research Librarian of the Year: Maureen Sullivan
PTFS Acquisition of LibLime Called Off
On Eve of Google Book Search Settlement Hearing, Some Library Voices
Columns:
What Scholarly Publishers Want To Know | From the Bell Tower
Repairing the Post-Ownership Library | Peer to Peer Review
