Huh, I hadn't fully realized how odd the settlement's original definition of "consortium" was (I'd sort of forgotten that BCR, LYRASIS, and NYLINK are long standing ICOLC members). So the parties to the settlement were essentially saying we like ICOLC, except for BCR, LYRASIS and NYLINK, without saying WHY they were excluding them.
Those groups didn't get exactly what they asked for in their letter. The last paragraph of the letter sums up their request:
“Specifically, amici respectfully request that the Court delete the existing definition of ‘Institutional Consortium’ in 1.73 in its entirety and substitute the following definition: ‘any legally constituted group of libraries, companies, institutions or other entities located within the United States.’”
What they got instead was this:
"'Institutional Consortium' means a group of libraries, companies, institutions or other entities located within the United States that is a member of the International Coalition of Library Consortia".
--- 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, 6:53 PM
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 Sun Nov 15 2009 - 15:19:22 EST