From PW: Grimmelmann on Google Settlement's Rights and Wrongs
Law professor remains troubled by revised settlement
-- Library Journal, 11/23/2009
New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann, whose made a name as a thoughtful and timely scholarly observer of the Google Book Search settlement (via his Laboratorium blog and other writings), in this week's Publishers Weekly writes about "what's right, what's wrong, what's left to do."Some excerpts:
The original settlement has opened our eyes to some exciting new possibilities and would do remarkable things to improve access to books. Some kind of digital access for out-of-print and orphan books along these lines would be a huge step forward for literary culture, closing the digital divide, and the future of information. But the fact that the settlement gets some things very right shouldn't isolate it from searching review of the things it doesn't. And the only way to make those distinctions is to have an informed, extensive, public discussion. Broadly speaking, there are three sets of reasons to worry about the settlement.So he remains troubled by the revised settlement. For more, go to the article.
The first is whether having a single, central source for all these millions of books is good for society. Will it drive libraries to eliminate their print collections and become dependent on Google's institutional subscription, only to see its price rise uncontrollably?
...A second is that Google-only exclusivity is an antitrust problem.
...A third reason for concern is inherent in the class action procedure itself.
