Surely libraries have never had any rights in the /content/ of their holdings?
Sharon M. Foster, 91.7% Librarian
Speaker-to-Computers
http://www.vsa-software.com/mlsportfolio/
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
> 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 - 14:39:56 EST