I sort of wonder about some of the statements in the BCR/LYRASIS/NYLINK letter. They seem to be a little unclear on what it means to be an "Institutional Consortium".
They talk quite a bit about how the old definition would have denied access to the resource by libraries and their patrons, e.g., this:
“While the Settlement has the potential to provide unprecedented public access to a digital library containing millions of books, and therefore could advance the core mission of amici’s member libraries, it could also, if not modified, lead to an unwarranted exclusion of library consortia from access to the digital resources governed by the Settlement. This result would be to the great detriment of amici, their participating libraries, and most importantly the patrons of those libraries.”
AND THIS:
“Going forward, a broad Exclusion could prevent amici and other similar organizations from being able to provide essential services to member libraries and their patrons, who will be deprived of access to the transformational digital resource governed by the Settlement.”
This focus on depriving libraries and patrons from access to the resource is sort of missing the point, I think. My reading of the settlement is that "Institutional Consortium" is used largely to determine who qualifies for a consortial discount, and who doesn't. It's not about who gets access and who doesn't. Libraries can get individual subscriptions. And just because a consortium qualifies for a discount doesn't mean they'll get one. On p.71 of the amended agreement it says "Approved discounts, IF ANY, that Google is authorized to offer to
an Institutional Consortium or its members will be included as part of the Pricing Strategy." And the amended agreement also says, on pp.71-72: "Google is only authorized to offer discounts to Institutional Consortia if members of the Institutional Consortium purchase Institutional Subscriptions for at least seventy percent (70%) of the FTEs (i.e., full-time equivalent students) of the members of the Institutional Consortium."
--- 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 - 16:10:04 EST