From the Article:

Judge Denny Chin has given his preliminary approval to the Google Book Search settlement agreement and established a timeline to move the agreement toward a final resolution. A final settlement/fairness hearing has been set for February 18 at which Judge Chin will hear arguments to determine whether the agreement is “fair, reasonable, adequate;” consider whether to certify the class for purposes of the settlement; and to make a determination whether to approve the agreement.

Prior to the hearing, the judge has ordered that supplemental notices about the amended agreement be sent beginning December 14, and he set a January 28 deadline for objections to be filed with the court.

[Snip]

As part of the amended settlement, companies from outside of the U.S. were to be added as plaintiffs. The order notes that new plaintiffs include Harlequin, Melbourne University Publishing Ltd., and The Text Publishing Company.

Source: Publisher’s Weekly

We’re going to on the lookout for news, commentary from experts, and viewpoints from various organizations and companies involved in the GBS story. We’re posting selected snippets with links to the full text. We also know that in the document filed with the court, there is one mention of libraries, public libraries to be specific.

From Google and Others Involved:

+ Modifications to the Google Books Settlement (via Google Public Policy Blog, Dan Clancy)

The changes we’ve made in our amended agreement address many of the concerns we’ve heard (particularly in limiting its international scope), while at the same time preserving the core benefits of the original agreement: opening access to millions of books while providing rightsholders with ways to sell and control their work online.

The blog post also links to a settlement modifications overview (3 pages) and a Revised Settlement FAQ (2 pages).

Are libraries mentioned in these documents? Yes. As you’ll read not much is different in terms of access except that the amended agreement allows the Registry to increase the amount of terminals in a public library.

On Page 2 of the Overview it States:

The amended settlement does not change the primary access models outlined in the original agreement, including enabling readers to preview and purchase books, selling institutional subscriptions to the whole database, and giving libraries free access at designated terminals. Under the revised agreement, possible additional access models to which Google and the Registry might agree in the future have been reduced and are now limited to: print-on-demand*, file download, and consumer subscription. The amended agreement also enables the Registry to increase the number of terminals at a public library building…

* The Amended Settlement limits POD, if approved, to Books that are not Commercially Available.

There is no mention of the words library or libraries in the FAQ.

There is a third document, a Supplemental Notice (an actual court filing; 6 pages; PDF),  listing all of the changes to the settlement.  #17 talks about the terminals in public libraries that we mentioned a moment ago.

Here are a few more changes (via the supplemental notice) that might be of special interest:

+ #16:

The Amended Settlement provides that the Registry will facilitate Rightsholders’ wishes to allow their works to be made available through alternative licenses for Consumer Purchase, including through a Creative Commons license…The Amended Settlement also clarifies that Rightsholders are free to set the Consumer Purchase price of their Books at zero.

+ #18:

The Amended Settlement no longer includes children’s book illustrations in the definition of Inserts. (ASA Section 1.75) The Amended Settlement, however, does not change the inclusion of pictorial works, such as graphic novels and children’s picture books, in the definition of Books and provides that the Amended Settlement only authorizes Google to display the pictorial images in such Books if a U.S. copyright owner of the pictorial image also is a Rightsholder of the Book. The Amended Settlement also clarifies that comic books are considered to be Periodicals and that Periodicals (as well as compilations of Periodicals) are not included in the definition of “Books,” and thus are not in the Amended Settlement.

Finally, if you would like to read the complete Amended Settlement Agreement, here’s the 173 page PDF file.

+ Amended Google/AAP Settlement (via Coyle’s InFormation, Karen Coyle)
An excellent overview of Settlement 2.0 from librarian Karen Coyle. She brings up several library related issues including the removal of an OCLC “exception”; download formats and course packs; and much more. This is must read material.

+ Is the Google Books Settlement Worth the Wait?

The Open Book Alliance–SLA and The New York Library Association–are two of its members has posted their views after a preliminary reading of the revised settlement. Here are a few snippets.

Open Book Alliance co-chair Peter Brantley said, “Our initial review of the new proposal tells us that Google and its partners are performing a sleight of hand; fundamentally, this settlement remains a set-piece designed to serve the private commercial interests of Google and its partners. None of the proposed changes appear to address the fundamental flaws illuminated by the Department of Justice and other critics that impact public interest.

[Snip]

Most critically, the settlement proposal 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. It is clear that Google has failed to meet these requirements.

UPDATE: 11/17 The Monopoly Continues (Source: Open Book Alliance)

UPDATE: 11/17 Proposed Changes Fail to Address Fundamental Flaws, Says Open Book Alliance Co-Chair (via Open Book Alliance)

+ Revised Google Book Settlement Filed & Live Blogging The Press Call (via Search Engine Land, Danny Sullivan)

Danny took the time to live blog the conference call that took place early Saturday morning, east coast time. On the call were:

+ Richard Sarnoff, chairman of the American Association of Publishers

+ Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild

+ Daniel Clancy, engineering director for Google Books

Here’s how they responded to the Open Book Alliance comments that are posted and linked to above this item.

So the response to that? Clancy stepped up, saying there were lots of discussions on how to change things. Adjustments were made to address class member concerns (the people involved in the lawsuit, rather the the Open Book Alliance, which is not a party to the suit). “I understand Amazon, Microsoft and the Internet Archive don’t want to increase access to these books,” he said, or very close to that. That was a zinger, stressing that the Open Book Alliance just happens to be backed by major Google competitors. Not that Google minds. Clancy said they welcome the competition and feel the settlement addresses concerns.

Aiken: “These are substantial changes.” He added that yes, the core settlement was largely protected but that it had to be, as it was in general seen correct.

Sarnoff: Said he assumed the OBA hadn’t read the settlement. That was probably true enough. The press conference itself appears to have started about 1/2 hour after the settlement was out. Some reporters on the call mentioned they hadn’t even read it.

+ The Authors Guild Has a Review of the MaJor Changes on their Site

+ Google Book Search Settlement Revised: No Reader Privacy Added (From the Electronic Frontier Foundation)

Unfortunately, the parties did not add any reader privacy protections. The only nominal change was that they formally confirmed a position they had long taken privately that information will not be freely shared between Google and the Registry. Our partners at the ACLU of Northern California have a blog post describing the changes we, and the authors we represent, have demanded and continuing the call for readers everywhere to let Google CEO Eric Schmidt know that reader privacy should not be left behind as books move into the digital age.

+ Amended Google Book Settlement: Doesn’t Deal with Privacy Problems (ACLU of Northern California)

One of our core privacy concerns with the Settlement has been that reading records are not properly protected from disclosure to the government and third parties. Readers should be able to use Google Book Search without worrying that the government or a third party is reading over their shoulder. No Settlement should be approved that allows reading records to be disclosed without a properly-issued warrant from law enforcement and court orders from third parties.

The Amended Settlement does not resolve this concern, with its only new privacy provision being the following:

“The revised agreement includes language that specifies that Google will not share any private information with the Registry without valid legal process.”

Much More After a Click
(more…)

An new version of the Google Book Search settlement was expected to be released today. However, as the NY Times reports, those involved have asked for more time. As of today, “Settlement 2.0″ will be released this Friday.

The parties to the Google book settlement, which would legalize the creation of a vast library of digital books, have asked the judge overseeing a revision of the agreement for an extension to this Friday, Nov. 13.

The parties told Judge Denny Chin of the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York that they would submit a revised settlement for the court’s preliminary approval by Nov. 9.

But on Monday, the parties submitted a letter to the court requesting an extension to Nov. 13. In the letter, the group indicated that it had met with the Justice Department before and after the October status hearing and had met as recently as Friday, Nov. 6.

Source: Media Coder Blog (NY Times)

Source: Open Book Alliance Releases Baseline Requirements for Revised Google Book Settlement Proposal

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)