On Monday (November 9th), a revised proposed settlement (aka Settlement 2.0) from Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publisher will be released. The Open Book Alliance (OBA) has posted on its web site what they call “baseline requirements” for the Settlement 2.0.

The Special Libraries Association and The New York Library Association are members of the OBA.

From the Blog Post:

The Open Book Alliance is issuing the following baseline requirements that the new settlement proposal must meet if it is to achieve those critical objectives. These requirements reflect the collective expression of concerns by the U.S. Department of Justice, authors, publishers, academics, libraries, foreign nations, state Attorneys General, consumer advocacy groups, and many others, and thus we think it appropriate to review the revised settlement within this framework.

[Snip]

+ The settlement must not grant Google an exclusive set of rights (de facto or otherwise) or result in any one entity gaining control over access to and distribution of the world’s largest digital database of books.

+ Authors and other rights holders must retain meaningful rights and the ability to determine the use of their works that have been scanned by Google.

+ The settlement must result in the creation of a true digital library that grants all researchers and users, commercial and non-commercial, full access that guarantees the ability to innovate on the knowledge it contains.

+ All class members must be treated equitably.

+ The settlement cannot provide for competition by making others engage in future litigation.

+ Congress must retain the exclusive authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to set copyright policy.

+ All rights holders impacted by the settlement must have a meaningful ability to receive notice, understand its terms and opt-out.

+ The parties that negotiated the settlement must live under the terms to which they seek to bind others, rather than their own separately negotiated arrangements.

Access the Complete Blog Post

Source: Open Book Alliance

See Also: Press Review: Judge Chin Sets Nov. 9 Deadline For Revised Google Book Settlement (via ResourceShelf, October 7, 2009)

Brantley is attending meetings in Spain and discussing the OBA and Google Book Search. He’s been interviewed by two newsapers, El Pais and Publico.es.

Here are links to both interviews in Spanish along with mechanically generated translations from two services.

1) “Google no ve libros, se limita a ver datos” (via El Pais)

+ Translation by Google: “Google does not see books, is limited to viewing data” (via El Pais)

+ Translation by Systran: “Google does not see books, is limited to see data” (via El Pais)

2) El bibliotecario que se enfrentó a Google (via Público.es)

+ Translation by Systran: “The Librarian Who Faced Google” (via Público.es)

+ Translation by Google: “The librarian who challenged Google” (via Público.es)

From a Blog Post:

EFF today led a coalition of authors, publishers, companies and nonprofit organizations in sending a letter to the judge overseeing the Google Book Search settlement urging the Court to ensure that those concerned about the settlement receive adequate notice of, and have sufficient time to study and comment on, any amended settlement agreement that Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers present.

Those following the twists and turns of the Google Book Search settlement will recall that the original Fairness Hearing scheduled for October 7, 2009, was put off because of what the Court called: “significant issues, as demonstrated not only by the number of objections, but also by the fact that the objectors include countries, states, non-profit organizations, and prominent authors and law professors.” The Court received over 400 submissions about the settlement, including the EFF-led coalition of authors and publishers concerned about reader privacy, as well as significant concerns raised by the Department of Justice.

Read the Complete Letter Sent to the Judge Denny Chin (4 pages; PDF)

The letter was signed by a large group of people and organizations including:

+ The Open Book Alliance*
+ Amazon.com
+ The Picture
+ Archive Council Of America
+ National Writers Union
+ Electronic Frontier Foundation
+ Pamela Samuelson (UC Berkeley Law Professor)
+ Microsoft
+ Washington Legal Foundation
+ The Internet Archive
+ Consumer Watchdog
+ Lyrasisk, Nylink and Bibliographical Center for Research Rocky Mountain, Inc.
+ Public Knowledge
+ Urban Libraries Council

+ The Special Libraries Association and the The New York Library Association are two of the members of the Open Book Alliance.

Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation

It was just a few days ago when we posted that the China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) was not happy with Google over copyright issues stemming from Google Book Search.

Today, in another Wall Street Journal blog post, we learn that Google has responded to CWWCS.

From the Post:

Here is the latest from Google:

“Today we have more than 50 Chinese publishers participating in Google Book Search, who together have authorized more than 30,000 books to be found through Google web search–and made available through a short preview. We also have some Chinese books that have been scanned by our Book Search library partners; in those cases, we only make the books available as a short snippet of text–as we do with web search–unless the rightsholder authorizes a greater use. We also honor rightsholders’ preferences if they ask not to be included.”

“Like all rightsholders, Chinese authors and publishers will be able to tell Google whether or not to display their books, and will be paid if the books are included in sales or subscriptions authorized under the settlement.”

Source: WSJ

See Also: Here’s How The Story Was Reported in the China Daily
Hat Tip: James Grimmelmann, The Laboratorium

A few weeks ago the D for Digitize Conference took place. It was sponsored by the New York Law School and organized by Professor James Grimmelmann. The focus of the conference was Google Book Search (GBS). The list of speakers/panelists reads like a Who’s Who of people representing all sides of the many issues being debated at the conference and elsewhere.

Now, you can watch each session online (free). Even two pre-conference tutorials are included. A list of sessions and speakers along with links to the videos can be accessed here.

Finally, if you want to read about what was discussed during a session before viewing the video or just don’t have time to watch, no worries.
Peter Hirtle from the Law Library Blog provide excellent text summaries of each session.

Law Library Blog is a co-production between Peter and Mary Minow.

See Also: Law Library Blog also has a Twitter feed at:
http://twitter.com/librarylaw

From a Blog Post:

The China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) has called on Chinese writers to stand up for their legal rights in the face of Web search giant Google’s proposed book settlement, according to a post published on the official Web site of Chinese Writers’ Association (CWA).

CWWCS claimed to have found copyrighted works written by a number of Chinese writers scanned and posted to Google’s digital library, Google Books.

[Snip]

A Google spokeswoman said, “Google Books promotes and encourages book sales – helping to ensure that authors and publishers are rewarded for their creative efforts. Our goal remains bringing millions of the world’s difficult-to-find, out-of-print books back to life. … The scope of our U.S. settlement is limited to the U.S. and comes under U.S law and only U.S. readers will benefit. Of course, we listen carefully to all concerns and will work hard to address them.”

A Google FAQ on its book program gave more detail about how compensation works for non-US authors:

“Holders of U.S. copyrights world-wide can register their works with the Book Rights Registry and receive compensation from institutional subscriptions, book sales, ad revenues and other possible sources, as well as a cash payment if their works have already been digitized. For example, a foreign author whose book was published outside the U.S. can register with the Book Rights Registry, and receive compensation, if that book is in the collection of a U.S. library from which it was digitized.”

Much More in the Complete Blog Post

Source: China Journal (via Wall Street Journal Digits Blog)

From the Editorial:

In 2007, Princeton signed on as one of the partner libraries in the Google Books Search project. By the end of this six-year agreement, the University will have sent Google about one million books to be scanned. All of the books — which the University has ensured are in the public domain — will then be available for free on the internet. This is an exciting project, allowing Princeton to share some of its intellectual wealth with readers around the world.

[Snip]

Though there is currently a lawsuit pending against the Google Books Search project by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, it does not pertain to Princeton’s participation in the project.

[Snip]

But this legal challenge is a reminder that Princeton’s involvement with Google — though a positive and useful partnership — could pose problems in the future. For one, Google, a for-profit corporation, may not be around forever, as it is subject to the intense competition of the technology sector. And though Google’s current goal is to digitize every book ever published, this may not always be the case. It is not unreasonable to imagine that in the future Google may develop a commercial interest in digitizing only works that would appeal to large audiences to make time for its workforce to focus on more profitable ventures.

[Snip]

One way to both reconcile this disparity between the profit motives of Google and the academic goals of Princeton, as well as to contribute to a more stable, long-term initiative, is for Princeton to join the HathiTrust. This promising nonprofit database started by Indiana University and the University of Michigan now includes 25 large university partners intent on creating a permanent database of digitized books not subject to the economic pressures corporations face.

[Snip]

The Google Books Search project has given our library a great head start into the sphere of digital libraries, and at no cost. But to protect the purely academic spirit of digitized libraries, the University should seek alternatives to its participation in the Google project.

Access the Complete Editorial

Source: The Daily Princetonian
Hat Tip: Library Stuff

In a post on Sunday, we mentioned the writing of Law Professor Pamela Samuelson from the UC Berkeley Law School (she is also has a Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information). At that point, she had written three columns about Google Book Search.

Today, she has written a new piece for The Huffington Post. The column is titled, Google Books Is Not a Library and in many was is a response to Sergey Brin’s Op-Ed column in the New York Times last week.

Here are just a few selected passages. Make sure to read the complete column.

Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are “orphans,” that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search. David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, has estimated that about twenty per cent of the books in the GBS corpus are orphans, but other estimates are higher. Even twenty per cent, however, equals millions of books.
[Snip]
If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents…Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books.
[Snip]
Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy. When you enter a library, you can search for books without anyone tracking your queries, you can read whatever is available for as long as you want without anyone monitoring your intellectual privacy, and you can check books out knowing that the records of what you’ve checked out will be protected from disclosure by state laws and by librarian ethics obligations.
[Snip]
That Google will serve ads alongside search results that yield GBS results is not surprising for the open Internet searches that users will do. But Google is now pressing university partners to accept ads even for the institutional subscriptions.

Read the Complete Column

Source: The Huffington Post

See Also: This post contains links to Professor Samuelson’s other columns in The Huffington Post

From the Article:

Information society and media commissioner Viviane Reding made the rallying call on Tuesday as the Commission announced its Communication on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, a strategy document that lays out measures to be taken to digitise and disseminate books in Europe.

“Europe should seize this opportunity to take the lead, and to ensure that books digitisation takes place on the basis of European copyright law, and in full respect of Europe’s cultural diversity,” Reding said in a statement on Tuesday.

She added: “Europe, with its rich cultural heritage, has most to offer and most to win from books digitisation. If we act swiftly, pro-competitive European solutions on books digitisation may well be sooner operational than the solutions presently envisaged under the Google Books Settlement in the United States.”

[Snip]

According to a European Commission spokesperson, the full Communication on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy will be released in full in the next few days.

Much More in the Complete Article

Source: ZDNet UK

See Also: European Commission to investigate copyright (via The Bookseller)

From the Article:

In her weekly video podcast, before Tuesday’s opening of the Frankfurt Book Fair, {German Federal Chancellor Angela} Merkel appealed for more international cooperation on copyright protection and said her government opposed Google’s drive to scan libraries full of books.

“The German government has a clear position: copyrights have to be protected in the Internet,” Merkel said, adding there are “considerable dangers” for copyright protection in the Internet.

“That’s why we reject the scanning in of books without any copyright protection — like Google is doing. The government places a lot of weight on this position on copyrights to protect writers in Germany.”
[Snip]
Merkel, who will open the world’s largest book fair in Germany’s financial capital, said there was a need to discuss the issue in greater detail in international institutions.

She did not, however, offer any concrete solutions.

Source: Reuters

+++ UPDATE: A text transcript of Merkel’s remarks is available (PDF) in German. We translated the document into English using Zoho Viewer and both Google Translate and Yahoo Babel Fish. Again, these are mechanical translations. Caveat Emptor!

+++ UPDATE: Here’s the actual video podcast (in German).

See Also: Book Trade Seeks a Deal with Google

The rest of the world — especially France and Germany — continues largely to view Google with suspicion. The company is sending its top lawyer to Frankfurt to engage once again with the industry.

“Books that were previously out of print will come back to life,” Santiago de la Mora, Google’s head of European print partnerships, told Reuters. “There are 1.8 billion Internet users. I’m pretty sure you can find readers for everything.”

The article also discusses ebooks and content piracy.

Source: Reuters

From the Wall Street Journal

At a meeting with reporters* in New York Monday, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt acknowledged that the parties may have to exclude orphan works from the settlement to get it approved.

The parties are also contemplating other modifications, including changes to the structure of the registry, the groups of authors and publishers that are charged with overseeing the settlement, setting some prices, and sharing revenue with copyright owners, say people familiar with the matter.

*in this article. (via WSJ). You can find two more reviews of the meeting from AllThingsD. and Search Engine Land.
** Brewster Kahle from the Open Content Alliance responds to some of the comments made by Sergey Brin.

From the NY Times:

The federal judge who is responsible for reviewing the Google book settlement that would create a vast digital library has set Nov. 9 as the date by which Google and its partners must submit a revised settlement for the court’s preliminary approval.
[Snip]
At a short hearing Wednesday morning in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Judge Denny Chin confirmed that the current settlement was no longer on the table.
[Snip]
Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild, said in an interview that the changes would be minor. “We would not be able to do it by Nov. 9” if they were more substantial, he said. “The core agreement is going to stay the same. We are amending limited portions of the settlement agreement.”

From the IDG News Service

“We appreciate the Court’s guidance and look forward to moving ahead. As we’ve said in the past and in the hearing today, we are considering a limited number of amendments to the agreement,” a Google spokeswoman said via e-mail on Wednesday.

“If approved by the Court, the settlement stands to unlock access to millions of books in the U.S. while giving authors and publishers new ways to distribute their work,” she added.

From the AFP:

An attorney speaking for the US Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers said the revised deal was on track.

“The parties have worked on a daily basis, assiduously,” Michael Boni said, and were “working around the clock.”

“We have gone a lone [sic] way to identify and negotiate amendments to the settlement,” he said.

Boni said the November 9 target for a preliminary hearing on the settlement was realistic and that “in the best case scenario we would target late December, early January for the final fairness hearing.”

Daralyn Durie, representing Google, also said the deal was within reach. “The parties’ expectation is that we will be able to present an amended settlement agreement,” she said

From the Open Book Alliance:

“Based on the court hearing today, one thing is clear — whatever revised settlement Google and its partners unveil on November 9th must be subject to full review and scrutiny by the vast array of stakeholders – authors, academics, consumer advocates, privacy groups, libraries, and others – who have spoken out.
[Snip]
“It’s also clear that the settlement partners have zero interest in creating an open process that takes input from critical stakeholders. Instead, Google and its partners are serving their private business interests and ignoring the public interest. They came to the courtroom without a single concrete recommendation of how they would address any of the problems with the original settlement. Instead, they proposed more of the same — secret, back room negotiations – rather than an open, transparent and collaborative process.”

From Bloomberg:

Chin today endorsed a proposal that would limit the time for opponents of the new pact to file court papers opposing it. He said opponents of the accord should voice comments only about new terms, not provisions that remain the same.
[Snip]
“Otherwise, it will be many, many, many months” before the case is resolved, he said.

Chin, who was nominated yesterday by President Barack Obama for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals, said he wanted to create a system by which parties objecting to the settlement may electronically file court papers, rather than hand-delivering them as previously done.

“In this case, of all cases, there should be an electronic way of handling this,” he said to laughter in the packed lower Manhattan courtroom.

From The Laboratorium (Professor James Grimmelmann)

Judge Chin asked about ways to make the submission process easier. The court has a single scanner, and spent four straight days scanning the hard-copy submissions. The Clerk’s office, however, is concerned about asking non-lawyers to use the electronic filing system. Judge Chin asked about the possibility of an email address for electronic submission of comments and objections, possibly through the settlement administration site. Boni said that the settlement agreement requires that objections be served on the parties, so they would be happy to take on the scanning burden.

From the Associated Press:

William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general, told the judge that the government has been in continuing discussions with the parties.

However, he said the government was not yet aware of what the final deal will look like.

He said he expected “meetings in the near term to go over whatever their proposal is.”

Cavanaugh asked that the judge give the government a week to 10 days after any deadline for objections to be submitted for the Justice Department to prepare its analysis of the new deal.

At one point, [Judge] Chin asked what will happen if negotiations break down and no deal is reached.

Google lawyer Daralyn Durie reassured the judge, saying: “The parties’ expectation is we will be able to reach agreement.”

From Reuters:

“I like the target date of early November. Targeting the changes is the right way to do it,” Chin said during a 15-minute long conference in court with lawyers for the parties and the U.S. Department of Justice.
[Snip]
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has said the Justice Department criticisms seem reasonable and the search engine giant is amenable to a few minor changes.

From AllThingsD

Though it’s not yet clear what form the revised settlement might take or what adjusted terms are being discussed, Google and the authors and publishers it has allied with it have quite a few critics to appease, including academics, librarians, privacy advocates, would-be rivals and the French and German governments.

From CNET:

A hearing on whether to approve that settlement was originally scheduled for Wednesday, but last month the publisher and author groups asked for more time to work out a new deal that satisfies the Justice Department’s concerns.