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…)
