"The suit also is seen by some as pre-empting copyright law in areas
like section 108, where libraries now have rights that they may not
have once this suit passes. "
I'd be interested in reading more about that, can you provide a
reference? That doesn't make sense to me that that could be possible.
Of course, just becuase a library has the right to do something under
copyright law doesn't mean that a particular vendor is obligated to
provide a service that allows a library to exersize that right. Is that
the issue, that libraries have rights that Google won't be providing
them tools to exersize under the terms of the settlement?
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
> Kyle Banerjee wrote:
>
>> We claim dedication to openness, but as a profession we generally
>> accept that it's OK to force librarians and others to withhold
>> knowledge that would really help improve services or help colleagues
>> make informed choices. Secrets govern contracts, system behavior,
>> development plans, job references, salaries, and a bunch of other
>> things that really affect what we can do. The very nature of secrets
>> is that they benefit the informed at the expense of the uninformed.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, it depends greatly on the nature of your institution. The
> reason why we have access to some of the original GBS contracts is that
> the public institutions must make those public if asked, and people
> asked. If you ask for salary information for a state university, you can
> get it. I've never had to sign an NDA regarding system behavior, and I
> would greatly resist not being able to tell my users how a library
> system works. Having talked with some folks who were involved, this was
> an unusual level of secrecy to work under. However, much of that had to
> do with the fact that this is not a normal negotiation -- this is a
> class-action lawsuit, and as such it has its own rules. We have to
> remember that this is not just Google making a deal, this is something
> that will become LAW if the settlement is agreed on by the judge in June.
>
>
>> In the case at hand, I wonder how much of the hubbub is just about
>> "discomfort." We have a professional neurosis with certain
>> organizations which makes us look harder for issues with them. For
>> example, OCLC is also a favorite whipping boy despite the fact that
>> it's a membership organization and we have mechanisms to apply
>> pressure. Meanwhile, we give a free pass to other institutions that
>> have demonstrated less accountability.
>>
>>
>
> Most of the analysis about this settlement has nothing to do with
> libraries, and isn't coming from the library field. The analysis comes
> from the legal arena, and relates to intellectual property law. As such,
> I recommend the writings of James Grimmelman, linked off of
> http://wo.ala.org/gbs/. One of the key problems is that it creates a
> monopoly for Google in relation to orphan works -- only Google, by law,
> can scan them and make them available. In overall business terms, this
> is a very bad idea. Fred von Lohmann of the EFF thinks that we need
> legislation that would at least open up this deal for anyone who wants
> to compete (including libraries themselves). The suit also is seen by
> some as pre-empting copyright law in areas like section 108, where
> libraries now have rights that they may not have once this suit passes.
> So it's really not a question of comfort, but of an actual threat to the
> balance we have now in law.
>
> 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 Wed Mar 04 2009 - 11:20:44 EST