Politics and Law

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.

Sometimes overlooked in the Sturm und Drang about Google Book Search is any consideration of the mechanics of economically scanning the books in the first place, but a patent awarded to Google gives insight into how the search behemoth accomplishes the task.

In short, Google has come up with a system that uses two cameras and infrared light to automatically correct for the curvature of pages in a book. By constructing a 3D model of each page and then "de-warping" it afterward, Google can present flat-looking pages online without having to slice books up or mash them onto a flatbed scanner.

This diagram shows patented Google technology for correcting for curved pages while scanning books.

(Credit: Google)

The Justice Department is examining antitrust issues regarding a proposed settlement of Google Book Search lawsuits with the search giant, according to reports in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources.

It's unclear what might come of the reported talks, but the Justice Department is not to be treated lightly. The department leads enforcement of antitrust law, and Google backed down from its threatened antitrust lawsuit against it in 2008 regarding a search-ad partnership with Yahoo.

The proposed settlement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, announced in October, would among other things give Google the right to show content from books online that are still in copyright but that are no longer in print. In addition, those copyright holders could be paid for online sales of their books.

Authors and publishers may opt out of the proposed settlement, but if they do nothing, they're considered part of it. That includes authors who can't be located.

Google has book-search agreements in place with numerous publishers, but the company hopes that the settlement will permit it to bring many more books to into its service. But in a tactical victory on Tuesday for settlement opponents, a judge gave authors four more months to decide whether to participate.

Antitrust issues have arisen in the Book Search case. One notable voice is Harvard University's head librarian, Robert Darnton, who in a February article in the New York Review of Books worried about the control Google would get through the settlement.

"The class-action character of the settlement makes Google invulnerable to competition," he said. "Most book authors and publishers who own U.S. copyrights are automatically covered by the settlement. They can opt out of it; but whatever they do, no new digitizing enterprise can get off the ground without winning their assent one by one, a practical impossibility, or without becoming mired down in another class action suit. If approved by the court--a process that could take as much as two years--the settlement will give Google control over the digitizing of virtually all books covered by copyright in the United States."

However, Paul Courant, though, dean of libraries at the University of Michigan--a Google Book Search Partner and fan of the proposed settlement--objected to Darnton's view. "His view of the world that will likely emerge as a result of Google's scanning of copyrighted works is a dystopian fantasy," Courant said.

Google and the Justice Department didn't immediately comment on the report.

This post was updated at 5:53 p.m. PDT with details about an extension request of the May 5 deadline filed by seven authors.

Google said Monday it's seeking 60 more days to find authors and persuade them of what it believes are the merits of a settlement involving its online Book Search service.

The proposed settlement of the 2005 case filed by the Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers involves Google's right to show information from books online--in particular "orphan" works that are still covered in copyright but that are in limbo, for example being out of print or written by authors who can't be located. Currently, authors must respond by a May 5 deadline to opt out, otherwise authors will be included in the settlement.

"The settlement is highly detailed, and we want to make sure rightsholders everywhere have enough time to think about it and make sure it's right for them. That's why we've asked the court for permission to extend the opt-out deadline for an extra 60 days," said Alexander Macgillivray, Google's associate general counsel for products and intellectual property, in a blog post Monday.

"It's pretty easy for credit card companies to contact their cardholders--they send bills to them all the time. The world's authors, publishers and their heirs are much more difficult to find," Macgillivray said. "So, as the New York Times recently reported, the plaintiffs hired notice campaign specialists Kinsella Media Group to tell them about this exciting settlement, and Google has devoted millions of dollars to fund this notice campaign. Kinsella started by launching a website for authors and publishers and a direct-mail effort. Beginning in January, Kinsella published ads in newspapers and other publications all over the world from Fiji to the Cook Islands to Greenland. And of course, they also placed ads right here at home in the U.S., in publications as diverse as Writer's Digest and USA Today."

Google is facing resistance to the settlement.

Seven authors last week requested a four-month extension (PDF) of the May 5 deadline due to the complexity of the proposed settlement, among other reasons.

"First, two months' time is insufficient to understand the implications of a settlement of this scope," the appeal letter reads. "Second, substantial defects in notice of the settlement undermine authors' ability to assess their rights; and third, more time is required simply to understand the complex terms of the agreement."