Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> "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.
It mainly has to do with section 108 and with the proposed orphan works
bill. Section 108 says you can copy a deteriorating item if no
replacement is available in the marketplace. Google will have
replacements in the marketplace. Plus, there is a statement in the
settlement that libraries can use their copies for section 108
replacement copies. Lawyers consider that dangerous. For orphan works,
the settlement has arrangements for orphan works, but they only apply to
Google. If a bill comes out that gives that right to everyone, there are
"non-compete" clauses in the settlement that look suspiciously like they
would not allow others to do the same thing that Google is doing.
There are bits and pieces in various writings. I you start with Sherwin
Siy's post, which mainly looks at the affect on fair use, but also
covers other things:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1828
>
> 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?
Right, a company doesn't HAVE to provide the tools, but given that most
information sources are monopolies, and this one will definitely be a
monopoly, then in fact you end up without a way to exercise your legal
rights in relation to this product. It's the monopoly aspect of this
that is important. Not only is it currently a monopoly, but the lawsuit
is done in such a way that it will remain a monopoly for the foreseeable
future -- there is no provision for any other company to get this same
deal. As the lawyers have said, another company would have to 1)
digitize millions of books, with the agreement of the libraries 2) get
sued by AAP and AG in a class action 3) enter into a settlement with
them 4) get them to agree to the same deal. This is a one-off, and it
totally changes the landscape. Read Grimmelmann on this
antitrust/anticompetition area.
kc
>
>
> 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
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
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 - 12:30:58 EST