There were definitely some library partners that played an advisory role
in the settlement, I don't think the list of such is public, but I've
seen some people self-identify in public.
Neither Google nor the rightsholders were obligated to give library
partners any role at all. It's a settlement between Google and the
rightsholders, the library partners have no _legal_ stake in it at all.
It's not entirely clear to me what benefit library partners thought they
were getting from their Google agreements in the first place. You'd need
to know that to know if they thought that benefit was being removed by
the potential settlement. But if library partners knew what benefit they
were getting, and wanted to ensure that they continued to get it, they
should have put it in their contracts. I suspect library partners
weren't even thinking clearly about what benefit they expected, let
alone trying to put it in the contract.
Google was doing things that they didn't know for sure if they had the
legal right to do. If there had been a lawsuit and they had lost, they
would have had to stop entirely. If there had been a lawsuit and they
had won, they maybe would have kept doing things just as they were, or
expanded it. Instead, there is likely going to be a settlement, and
they agreed with the rightsholders to do certain things. They were
under no obligation to take account of the interests of library partners
in those negotiations. If they did, it was out of good will or desire
for PR.
If libraries wanted any more than this, shame on them for not
negotiating for it in their contracts.
Jonathan
B.G. Sloan wrote:
>
> I'm glad Karen brought this up...
>
> To me, the most jaw-dropping aspect of the Google Books settlement is that the vaunted "library partners" (the libraries supplying the books for digitization) don't really seem to know what the settlement might mean for libraries.
>
> The library partners do not seem to have played even an advisory role in the settlement. And if they were involved, they didn't do a very good job because ALA, ARL, and ACRL feel obliged to file an amicus curiae brief in the case, on behalf of the library community.
>
> Andrew Albanese wrote the following in LJ's Academic Newswire:
>
> "The decision to file an amicus brief from the library community comes after significant discussion among library leaders...it reveals the uneasy position libraries find themselves in as the Google settlement hurtles forward...the blunt instrument of an amicus brief may be the only formal voice libraries now have in the wide-ranging final settlement, one that could very well shape the future market for access to books."
>
> I find it ironic that the library community feels obligated to file an amicus brief to protect our interests, while Paul Courant of Google library partner Michigan ended an October blog post on the settlement by saying: "Faculty, students, and other readers will be able to browse the collections of the world's great libraries from their desks and from their breakfast tables. That’s pretty cool."
>
> Bernie Sloan
> Sora Associates
> Bloomington, IN
>
> --- On Tue, 3/3/09, Karen Coyle <lists_at_KCOYLE.NET> wrote:
>
> From: Karen Coyle <lists_at_KCOYLE.NET>
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Google Books, AAP Lawsuit, and Transparency
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 9:57 AM
>
> Since Google Books comes up frequently in our conversations here, I thought I
> would make sure that this group is aware of the potential transformation of GBS
> into a monopoly product controlling book digitization. It's hard to define
> in a few words, but in June a judge will decide if Google -- and Google only --
> gets a free pass on digitizing out of print/in copyright books without violating
> copyright. Google will then license those books to users and institutions. As
> Paul Courant said in his blog post "The Google Settlement - From the
> Universal Library to the Universal Bookstore":
>
> "As the product develops, academic libraries will be able to license not
> only their own digitized works but everyone else’s."
> http://paulcourant.net/2008/10/28/the-google-settlement-from-the-universal-library-to-the-universal-bookstore/
>
> Yes, the participating libraries, those whose works are being digitized, will
> "be able to license... their own digitized works" from Google for full
> viewing. The full viewing is good news, the control over this by Google much
> less so. Libraries cannot let anyone look at their own digital copies, but they
> must license it from Google.
>
> There are lots of problems, not the least of which is transparency. We know
> very little about what Google offers in GBS. We didn't even know how many
> books it had digitized until the number showed up in the pages of the settlement
> agreement (7 million). We don't know (and have no control over) what order
> retrieved books are delivered in, how indexing is done, what metadata Google
> has, etc. etc. Google can decide to exclude any works it wants, for
> "editorial reasons." And it's not clear that a list of excluded
> works will be public. It sets prices, as agreed on by the authors and
> publishers. It determines functionality, although some functionality is already
> limited in the lawsuit (e.g. public libraries cannot provide remote access, only
> in-library access, to the service; all books remain on Google's servers,
> even those purchased by individuals; libraries cannot purchase books, only
> subscribe to the service).
>
> I've been at two all-day meetings about this lawsuit, I've read most of
> the 140 pages + 13 appendices, and I'm still not at all sure what the shape
> of this thing is. I only know that it's huge, and we need to be paying
> attention.
>
> The ALA Washington Office is watching this. http://wo.ala.org/gbs/. The listing
> of blog posts about it (which is probably the most digestible information):
> http://wo.ala.org/gbs/articles-blog-posts-links/. My blog posts on it, including
> the talk I gave at ALA Denver:
> http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/search/label/googlebooks
>
> kc
>
> -- -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 03 2009 - 14:37:03 EST