Quoting "B.G. Sloan" <bgsloan2_at_YAHOO.COM>:
>
> Karen's blog notes: "The original settlement had a strange exception
> that removed OCLC networks from the definition of 'consortium'."
>
> I still think the settlement's definition of "consortium" is odd.
> Now consortia are defined as OCLC networks and members of the
> International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC). ICOLC members
> are mostly academic library consortia, so that leaves out a LOT of
> multitype consortia.
Look at Lyrasis/Nylink's letter of objection, which also somewhat
answers the question on how that statement got in there and why it was
taken out:
http://thepublicindex.org/docs/letters/lyrasis.pdf
They also mention that ICOLC is not a membership organization in the
strict sense, just an informal body of libraries with shared interests.
Their analysis: (p.9) "Google is granting rights to certain
"Institutional Consortia" to engage in business arrangements with
Google, but the Settlement arguable goes further by tacitly allowing
Google to delegate to an independent third-party, OCLC, the
unconstrained right to determine which organizations may not
participate under this agreement... By essentially (if
surreptitiously) delegating the definitional discretion to OCLC, the
Settlement gives OCLC -- a non-party, not subject to the court's
supervision -- virtually complete control over what will rapidly
become an essential public good."
So, between the lines, they are saying that OCLC was trying to knock
them out of the competition to be brokers for the institutional
subscriptions. If so, that's big, really big.
kc
>
> Bernie Sloan
>
>
> --- On Sat, 11/14/09, Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Revised Google Books Settlement
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Saturday, November 14, 2009, 3:55 PM
>
>
> I've posted a short analysis of changes of particular interest to
> libraries (at least, of the ones I noted on a first frantic pass
> through the text):
> http://kcoyle.blogspot.com
>
> A couple of them are really odd.
>
> kc
>
> Quoting "B.G. Sloan" <bgsloan2_at_YAHOO.COM>:
>
>>
>> The revised Google Books settlement is now avaikable at:
>>
>> http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/amended_settlement_redline.pdf
>>
>> They've used change-tracking in the document, so it's easy to see
>> what the changes are.
>>
>> A Library Journal article on the revised settlement is available at:
>>
>> http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6707181.html
>>
>> Bernie Sloan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>
>
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sat Nov 14 2009 - 18:55:03 EST