Library groups gripe about Google Book Search
Three groups representing hundreds of libraries lodged a long series of concerns about a proposed settlement of lawsuits over Google Book Search on Monday--but refrained from objecting overall.
Specifically, the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries expressed some affinity for Google's mission of sharing books with the public, but raised concerns in a legal filing that the settlement would concentrate power in Google's hands and poses pricing and privacy concerns.
Google has patented technology for scanning books.
(Credit: U.S. PTO)Google is scanning millions of books, presenting their contents online at the Google Book Search site and blending some information into its regular search results, but the move triggered lawsuits by the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild. A proposed settlement of the class-action suit would permit Google to share some contents of books online--not just those that are in the public domain and those still being sold with which Google has agreements with publishers, but also those that are still in copyright but out of print.
The settlement terms are of high interest to the library world. Under the proposed settlement, Google would offer a free computer terminal in U.S. libraries that would permit people to read books online and a subscription service that would permit paying customers, such as larger libraries, to offer more computer terminals. In cases where readers or institutions pay for access to online books, funds would be divided between Google and a proposed independent non-profit group, the Book Rights Registry, set up to handle payments, find authors and other rights holders, and let them include or exclude their works from the project.
"The library associations do not oppose approval of the settlement. The settlement has the potential to provide unprecedented public access to a digital library containing millions of books," the groups said in their filing. "However, the digital library enabled by the settlement will be under the control of Google and the Book Rights Registry. Moreover, the cost of creating such a library and Google's significant lead-time advantage suggest that no other entity will create a competing digital library for the foreseeable future."
That power could put libraries at a disadvantage, they argue.
"We are concerned that the cost of an institutional subscription may skyrocket, as academic journal subscriptions have over the past two decades," said Erika Linke, president of Association of College and Research Libraries, in a statement.
Added Jim Rettig, president of the American Library Association, the proposed settlement "offers no assurances that the privacy of what the public accessed will be protected, which is in stark contrast to the long-standing patron privacy rights libraries champion on behalf of the public."
In its response, Google looked on the sunny side but didn't address pricing or privacy details: "We're pleased that the thousands of librarians and libraries represented by the ALA recognize the promise of our groundbreaking agreement, and we appreciate that the Library Associations do not oppose approval of the settlement. Google is proud to partner with dozens of libraries around the world as part of our Book Search efforts, and we have consistently maintained that, if approved by the court, our settlement agreement stands to unlock access to millions of books for users in the U.S."
But the library groups struck a more sober tone in their filing. Take, for example, this section on the power Google would get by virtue of obtaining online publishing rights through the class action settlement:
The settlement of copyright class action litigation might well have been the only feasible way this research tool could have been created. A class action settlement provided perhaps the most efficient mechanism for cutting the Gordian knot of the huge transactions costs of clearing the rights of millions of works whose ownership often is obscure. However, the class representatives and Google structured the settlement in such a manner as to give them enormous control over this essential facility. This is not surprising, given their economic interests. Indeed, precisely because of their economic interests, it is unlikely that they would have agreed to a structure that did not grant them such control.
To be sure, nothing in the Settlement prevents another entity from undertaking a mass digitization effort similar to Google's. But given the enormous cost of such an effort, and Google's significant lead time advantage (Google has been digitizing in-copyright books since 2004), no other entity is likely to so in the near future. Hence, there is no foreseeable threat to the control Google and the Registry have over this essential research facility.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
Just like the music industry, sit around, watch someone else revolutionize the industry, then start moaning.
Oh wait, that's the automobile industry as well. No one buys your cars, you're bankrupt but your unions still want the employees to be paid 45$ an hour and keep their jobs even though your business has tanked and you can't figure out why during high oil prices no one wants to buy your Hummer.
As the ALA said in their statement, "The library associations do not oppose approval of the settlement. The settlement has the potential to provide unprecedented public access to a digital library containing millions of books". The objection is to the rights management and associated costs. Jeez, I'd think many CNET users above all would be sympathetic to any group worried about the restrictions inherent in DRM and other rights-restricting schemes.
First of all, we librarians work off a state or county budget. For those of you who think we're swimming in cash, I suggest that you check out how much of your tax dollars go to your local library (here's a hint: not a lot). If your music CDs in your local library are trashed, it isn't the librarians scratching them up for fun - you can blame your fellow citizens for that. And, when damaged items are made aware to us (we can't possibly check everything as it comes back in), a decision has to be made on if it would be better to get a new item or replace the damaged one. Its usually a better use of money to buy something new instead.
And new flash, folks. Libraries CANNOT compete with Google. Google has more money than God. We don't have the equipment, money or manpower to throw at a project like that. The beef is with the rights. Sure, we get a free access computer (that we have to maintain on our own dime once we get it) but we get no assurances that Google won't raise the cost of access later.
If you don't like how YOUR local library is being run, you can either continue to complain on internet message boards or you can become involved in your local government and make your voice heard.
Why would I want to close the small libraries? They are largely useless. What I learned from my local library is that they generally buy and retain only new stuff. Old stuff is sold. And by old, I don't mean worn out or duplicate copies of things. The local library is not interested in maintaining books that are 10 or 40 years old. There is limited space, so they sell old books. What that means is that my local library is just making available for "free" the best sellers of the past few years. It is definitely not a place for any kind of research on any useful or interesting topic.
The library system in my location is broken and does not provide a very useful service. It sounds like yours has the same problem. You consider that to be only a little money, but I consider it a lot of waste nonetheless. I would much rather channel that money into the establishment of a useful library, even if that means there isn't one on every street corner.
In any event, it appears that the Library groups have made a few
legitimate gripes that need addressing. Frankly I think this deal
stinks badly as again it basically abrogates the copyrights of orphaned works
to Google if no descendants can be found, very soon. Ergo giving Google
exclusive rights to works they did not originally publish nor author.
Secondly it gives far to little to the libraries in which they scan
those works, and thirdly, Google gets exclusive rights to post ads on those
snippets it provides of works it may highlight. To me that alone is
a significant restraint of trade in and of itself.
For these reasons amongst some others I originally proposed simply
the following amendments to this agreement to DOJ Anti Trust division:
1.) Google must continue to seek the descendants of the original authors
of the orphaned works for at least 20 years hence and do so out of the
proceeds of no less than 33% of same.
2.) That Google must deposit in a escrow those proceeds for that
search activity and outline what efforts those efforts have been in
great detail. These efforts must be than published in full for public
review and comment so as to provide for improvements in which
those search efforts can be improved, and so so in an online forum
not of Google origin or control.
3.) That alt least 10% of all gross proceeds from all sales including
advertising of the snippets Google agreed to provide will be available
for educational institutions to purchase any of the works they or any
other similar provider may in the future provide in a similar manner.
4.) That each library in which Google scans written works of, be
included in at least 33% of all proceeds individually.
5.) That Google not have the exclusive or any influence what so ever
on what is and what is not appropriate content and that no redactions
of any of these works be allowed as well as all scanned works be
available in full at the determination of the customer or requester.
6.) That google make avaliable any and all scanned works avaliable
free of charge in full to under privileged children under the age of 18,
and those adults that are financially distressed or who's annual income
is less than $32,000. And that all works will be made available to the
blind of sight impaired at significant discounted price in full without
exception.
My guess it though that Google will not accede to these terms, so
hopefully the DOJ will do it's duty and make a motion to the court
to consider these terms and amend the agreement accordingly by
order of said court. But I for one will find it difficult to understand
why, after all, as Vint Cerf is fond of saying, "Do good works" or
"For the greater good".
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827
And if other people want to scan books then they should do it.
- by mikeburek May 5, 2009 11:39 PM PDT
- Librarians actually do an amazing amount of defending freedom of speech against Congress. Librarians are on the forefront telling Congress and the Executive branch that a person's library checkout history is off limits to searches. Individually, some might seem out of touch, but together, they are a very real defense for everyone's right to free speech.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)Thank you, librarians.