I don't think they _can_ get out of the current contracts. Is anything
in the current contract _prohibited_ by the potential settlement? I
think that if libraries wanted to keep the current contracts, they could
-- and if the settlement somehow prohibited some of those things, then
the libraries would have to be 'bought out'.
But rather, I think the new contracts offered under the settlement are
likely to be sufficiently better for partner libraries that they'll just
take the new contracts, rather than stick the old ones.
But, unless the old contracts had a clause "null and void if future
legal action with rightsholders requires it" (which is quite possible),
then, yeah, the old contracts are in effect until the parties agree
otherwise.
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
> Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
>> Indeed they did not, which is why they are not legal parties to the
>> settlement.
>>
>> They still signed a contract with Google to provide Google access to
>> the physical items to scan them. If they wanted certain benefits out
>> of this, they should have negotiated to have those benefits in their
>> contracts.
>>
>
> They did, and many of the contracts are public (all of the ones from
> publicly funded universities). They are even linked off the partners
> area of the GBS page, and "can i see the contracts" is one of their
> FAQs. Those, however, are the old contracts. The proposed new contracts
> (that libraries will need to sign once the settlement is legalized) are
> in appendix B of the settlement documents. (Linked from this page:
> http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/). Those new contracts are
> currently being negotiated -- in other words, the partner libraries are
> working out details and trying to get modifications of those contracts
> before signing them.
>
> What is weird to me, as a non-lawyer, is how G can get out of its
> current contracts (most of which would be valid for another few years)
> and replace them with new contracts that are mandated by this lawsuit. I
> think it requires the cooperation of the libraries, but IANAL.
>
> kc
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 03 2009 - 15:55:10 EST