The Google Book Search Settlement
Topic Date: March 30
back to syllabus
Concrete Questions of the Week
How will the Google book digitization project affect various interests, including those who were parties to the settlement between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers and those who were not? In particular, what changes will libraries (public, private, and university), and readers face going forward, and how should they respond?
Precis
In 2004, Google began to digitize books from the collections of Harvard's, Stanford's, University of Michigan's, and Oxford's library systems, as well as the New York Public Library system. Google provided a service, Google Book Search (GBS), whereby users could search within these digitized books. The service returned short "snippets" of books, containing the search term and some surrounding text. Crying foul, a class action lawsuit was initiated by the Authors Guild in September 2005, citing copyright infringement. The Association of American Publishers followed with a suit of their own in October 2005. Google claimed that its actions were covered under the doctrine of fair use. Rather than fight that battle, however, Google decided to settle with the Author's Guild and the publishers.
The resulting settlement, which is still pending court approval, creates an entirely new legal regime for book digitization. The settlement calls for the creation of a Book Rights Registry (BRR), an independent body chaired by an equal number of author and publisher representatives, which is to maintain a database of book copyrights and implement the terms of the settlement. Google will be able to continue to digitize books, free from fear of litigation (at least from those copyright owners who do not opt out of the settlement and who published a book prior to January 5, 2009). In return, 63% of revenue from advertising and book sales will be given to the BRR, to distribute to rights owners.
Users of GBS will continue to be able to search the contents of books, but instead of "snippets", what they see will depend on the type of book. For those books in the public domain, users will be able to read the entire book. For books that are in-copyright, but no longer commercially available, users will be able to view up to 20% of the book (with some restrictions). For books that are in-copyright and commercially available, GBS will display only bibliographic information and "front material" (copyright page, table of contents, index, etc.). Users will also be able to pay in order to have permanent online access to the full book contents.
Libraries also gain from the settlement. Each public library will be allowed a single terminal which will display the entire content of the Institutional Subscription Database (ISD), essentially containing all in-copyright, non-commercially available books. Academic libraries will be allowed to have multiple terminals with such access, based on number of full-time equivalent students. Institutions may also purchase subscriptions to the ISD. "Fully participating libraries" are given digital copies of any book scanned from their collection, as well as digital copies of books in their collection scanned elsewhere, provided that a sufficient proportion of their own collection is digitized.
What does this settlement mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating "the long dreamed of universal library" and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? The ramifications of the settlement will affect not only those parties who participated in the negotiations (Google, authors, and publishers), but also libraries and the reading public, neither of whom had a voice in the settlement-drafting process. Each of these groups will likely face a different set of benefits and problems. With a focus on libraries (public, private, and academic), we aim to identify the main challenges that the Google digitization project will entail for non-parties and to suggest creative solutions for adapting to these changes.
Guests
- Professor John Palfrey
- Jeffrey Cunard (via videoconference)
- Allan A. Ryan
Readings
Assigned Readings
- A summary of the settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
- James Grimmelmann's article outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
- A report on the settlement's implications that will be issued by the American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, and Association of College and Research Libraries after their closed discussion on Feb. 9.
- Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).
- Letter in response by Paul Courant, head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's negative views of the settlement.
Optional Readings
- Skim the full settlement agreement, focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).
- Peter Brantley's critique that the settlement is insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to enable readers to be able to alter the texts of books.
Discussion of Readings
- This is a recap of a conference that Grimmelmann and Vaidhyanathan attended.
- This is a pretty comprehensive bibliography of articles and blog posts discussing the settlement, so i've removed most of the duplicated links that used to be below. Cooper 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- The ALA Washington Office is compiling all of its posts on the settlement here
- Here's the link to articles by Darnton on Google Book Search in the New York Review of Books.
- New York Times articles (here and here)
- If we don't get a copy of the Libraries' report, we could use these initial thoughts from the ALA.
- I just remembered a potentially relevant book I read as an undergrad, called Scrolling Forward. I'll peruse it over break looking for useful excerpts. Gwen 22:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, I don't think this book will be helpful. It's a bit too philosophical and vague for our purposes; there isn't a particular chapter focused on one concrete problem. Gwen 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral summary of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. Lbaker 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Less specifically related to libraries, but this blog post outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.
- On February 9, the ARL, ACRL and ALA are hosting a session on the Google settlement agreement. It will not be webcast or archived (or even open to the public), but its conclusions regarding the implications of the agreement will be released in a report. The report should be drafted and available in time to be read before our session.Gwen 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- A statement from some public university libraries in support of the project.
Class Participation/Use of Tech
Our subject will revolve around the particular challenges that the settlement, as it stands, presents for libraries, as well as the missed opportunities for the reading public. Given the "brain trust" present in the members of this seminar, as well as the experience of the guests who will be joining us, we believe we could collectively draft a list of recommendations for incorporation into a final, court-approved settlement, similar in format to the Laboratorium post (in the list of potential readings), but focused on libraries (and the reading public). This may then be sent to the court (if this is feasible or there is some mechanism for public input in the settlement-approval process) or just nailed to the proverbial church door (blog, Berkman site, wherever).
- One potential worry is that it seems that the settlement is not modifiable -- it has to be voted up or down. If it's voted down, a modified proposal could be submitted, but it might not be accepted by the parties.
This list of recommendations will be seeded prior to the class with some of the proposals that are already floating around the internet, then projected, drafted, and edited dynamically throughout the session. There would be an opportunity for further editing of the list of recommendations after the class, for perhaps a week or two, and then deposited online and/or brought to the court's attention after a last round of "polishing" edits.
- As for technology for simultaneous document editing, check out gobby (google it). Mchua 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).