The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki) - User contributions [en]

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-05-15T14:29:26Z

Lbaker: /* Suggestions for Future Iterations */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''Topic Date:''' March 30

back to [[syllabus]]

= Concrete Questions of the Week =

How will [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_book_search the Google book digitization project] affect various interests, including those who were parties to the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf 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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
In 2004, [http://www.google.com/ Google] began [http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/print_library.html to digitally scan books] from the university library collections of Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and the University of Michigan, as well as from the New York Public Library system. Google provided a service, [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search (GBS)], whereby users could search within these digitized books. The service allowed users to search and view the entire content of books in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain public domain], but it also permitted searching copyrighted books, providing short [http://books.google.com/googlebooks/screenshots.html#snippetview "snippets"] containing the search term and some surrounding text.

Crying foul, the [http://www.authorsguild.org/ Authors Guild], a writers' advocacy group, initiated a [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/authors-guild-v-google/Authors%20Guild%20v%20Google%2009202005.pdf class action law suit] on September 20, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Infringement copyright infringement]. The [http://www.publishers.org/ Association of American Publishers (AAP)] followed with a [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/mcgraw-hill/McGraw-Hill%20v.%20Google%2010192005.pdf suit of their own] on October 19, 2005. Google [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112958982689471238.html responded] that its actions were lawful under the doctrine of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use fair use]. Rather than fight that battle, however, Google decided to settle with the Authors Guild and the AAP.

The parties announced a [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] on October 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny_Chin Judge Denny Chin] is supervising the settlement process. Under the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14741799/SDNY-Order-Extending-Deadline-to-September-4 current schedule], authors have until September 4, 2009 to opt out of the settlement, and the court will hold a final hearing on October 7, 2009, after which it will accept or reject the settlement. On April 14, 2009, Professor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Nesson Charles Nesson] filed a [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14227449/Letter-to-Request-Intervention-in-Authors-Guild-v-Google motion to intervene] in the lawsuit as counsel on behalf of authors and professors [http://www.lewishyde.com/index.html Lewis Hyde] and [http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~lewis/ Harry Lewis], and the [http://openaccesstrust.org/ Open Access Trust], and on April 17, 2009, the [http://www.archive.org/index.php Internet Archive], an online library, also [http://www.opencontentalliance.org/2009/04/17/internet-archive-files-intervention-request/ sought to intervene,] but Judge Chin [http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/92/ denied their requests.] On May 4, 2009, a number of library associations [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/googlebrieffinal.pdf filed a brief] requesting that the court "vigorously" supervise implementation of the settlement, should it be approved. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/internet/29google.html?_r=3&hp reportedly commenced a review] of the settlement's legality under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law antitrust law.]

== Content of the Settlement ==
The [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] creates an entirely new legal regime for book digitization. Under the settlement, Google will continue to offer GBS, but it will now have to pay authors and publishers for books still under copyright from the revenue it makes from advertising and selling access to the books. To facilitate payment, the settlement creates a new entity called the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_Rights_Registry Book Rights Registry (BRR)], an independent body chaired by an equal number of author and publisher representatives and charged with maintaining a database of book copyrights and implementing 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 channeled to the BRR for distribution to rights owners. The BRR also possesses other powers. For instance, the BRR has some discretion over dividing revenues between publishers and authors, has some approval power over Google’s security standards, will help shape the pricing of books, and can even license copyrights to third parties besides Google. The settlement is thus non-exclusive to Google, but there is a [http://dltj.org/article/first-formal-gbs-objections/ “most favored nation clause”] that requires the BRR to give Google at least as good terms as any other third-party for the 10 years after the settlement’s approval.

Users of GBS will continue to be able to search the contents of books, but instead of returning "snippets," search results will depend on the type of book. The settlement places each book in one of three categories. First are public domain books, which users will continue to be able to view in their entirety. It is estimated that about 20% of GBS books are in the public domain. Second are books that are in-copyright and commercially available, which means that they are available for sale new through a “customary channel of trade” (e.g. can you get it new at Amazon?). For these books, GBS will display only bibliographic information and "front material" (copyright page, table of contents, index, etc.). About 10% of GBS books are estimated to be in-copyright and commercially available. Third are books that are in-copyright but not commercially available, which account for an estimated 70% of GBS books, and thus make up the bulk of what is covered by the settlement. For these books, users will be able to view up to 20% of the book (with some restrictions). Rightsholders may choose to deviate from these default settings and individually set the amount of each of their books available for users to view. Institutions and individual users will also have the option of paying for permanent online access to the full content of digitized books. The initial price of the institutional subscription will depend on the type of institution (whether it is a corporation, a library, or a government office), how many people are members of the institution, and by reference to the price of products and services “comparable” to GBS.

Libraries are also specifically addressed by the settlement. Each public and academic library will be [http://dltj.org/article/gbs-settlement-public-access/ allowed a single GBS terminal] that will display the entire content of the Institutional Subscription Database (ISD), essentially a database comprised of all books that are in-copyright but not commercially available. Academic libraries will be allowed to have multiple terminals with such access, based on the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled at their respective schools. Institutions may also purchase subscriptions to the ISD. "Fully participating libraries" are given digital copies of any book scanned from their collections, as well as digital copies of books that are in their collection but were scanned from another library, provided that a sufficient proportion of their own collection has been digitized.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] (or at least a [http://paulcourant.net/2008/10/28/the-google-settlement-from-the-universal-library-to-the-universal-bookstore/ "universal bookstore"]) and for [http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/on_the_google_book_search_agre.html providing more access] than may have been permitted under fair use if the case had gone to trial (though [http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/10/google-book-search-settlement.html some question] that latter assessment). 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 direct 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 and develop ways of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Outline of Class Plan =

We will be working from the assumption that the current proposed settlement will be approved by the court. Within the framework that this settlement establishes, then, how can we mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the reading public? We hope to explore the contours of these problems and produce an array of possible solutions.

'''Class time will be segmented as follows:'''
* The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, provided by the student presenters responsible for this class session.
* Then, each of our three [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Guests guests] will be given ten minutes to present his views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above.
* After our guests have introduced their perspectives on the settlement, we will follow up with questions we have prepared for them. These questions are designed to ensure that all important aspects of the settlement and its expected effects are brought up.
* Finally, we will open the session to class discussion, guided by the Berkman Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]). The discussion will be focused on normative suggestions for how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement in the wake of its (presumed) approval by the court.

'''Substantive concerns generally fall within one of the following categories:'''
* Access (including permitted free uses, number of public terminals, and subscription costs)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* International Implications (with respect both to settlement coverage of international authors publishing in the U.S. and to GBS access by individuals located outside of the U.S.)
* Privacy and Security (including monitoring or data-mining reader habits and censorship)
* User Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection-like organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =

Three guests will be participating in our class session. Two of them will be joining us live, and one will join us over videoconference. All three guests will be present for the duration of the class session.

* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm [http://www.debevoise.com/ Debevoise & Plimpton LLP].
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/ here].)
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/chooser.php the Berkman Question Tool]! (The instance name for our class session is IIFGBS, and it is located [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS here].) Before the day of our class session, we will seed the question tool with some questions that we feel are particularly relevant and topical. We encourage everyone to take a look at these questions prior to the class and to make comments, add more questions, and vote up the questions you find most interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the class discussion, especially in the final portion of the class.

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf This summary of the settlement], prepared by [http://www.policybandwidth.com/ Jonathan Band] on behalf of [http://www.arl.org/ the Association of Research Libraries] and [http://www.ala.org/ the American Library Association].

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc These selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann This article] by [http://james.grimmelmann.net/ James Grimmelmann], outlining potential problems with and revisions to the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 This New York Review of Books article] by [http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/darnton.php Robert Darnton] criticizing the settlement. (Or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms] on [http://www.npr.org/ National Public Radio].)

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ This letter in response to Darnton] by [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pnc/ Paul Courant] (head of the University of Michigan's library, a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 This New York Review of Books piece] by Darnton in response to Courant's challenges. (Skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is less detailed than the one posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page.)

== Optional Readings ==

*Experiment with the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://waltcrawford.name/ Walt Crawford] of [http://citesandinsights.info/ Cites and Insights] has compiled [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf this 30-page newsletter (PDF)], which includes excerpts from an enormous number of blog posts, accompanied by his own commentary. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://radar.oreilly.com/peter/ Peter Brantley] of [http://peterbrantley.com/ shimenawa] offers [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain this blog post] critiquing the settlement as insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to provide readers with a more transformative interface that would enable them to alter the texts of books.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] introduces [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Kahle Brewster Kahle] and his [http://www.archive.org/index.php Internet Archive] as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*[http://pureinformation.org/about/ Timothy Vollmer] of [http://pureinformation.org/ pureinformation.org] has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Session Recap =

The class session was dominated largely by discussion among our three guests, punctuated by questions from the class. What follows below is a thematic summary of the views that were expressed during this discussion. For a more detailed account of the class session (including diachronic notes on the guests' presentations, the live discussion, and the online discussion, as well as lists of our prepared questions), see our [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Class_Notes_03.30.09.pdf edited class notes].

''A Private Settlement With Benefits for Everyone''

Despite the many concerns (e.g. [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Darnton's]) and settlement amendment proposals (e.g. [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann Grimmelmann's]) raised in newspapers and the blogosphere, it is important to remember that this settlement is the (presumptive) result of actual litigation between specific parties. The parties have taken care to incorporate other interests into the negotiation process, but at its core the settlement is designed to satisfy the concerns of publishers and authors that led them to sue Google in the first place. Nonetheless, major libraries had a presence during the negotiations, participating both directly and through Google. The public interest was also taken into account in a variety of ways, culminating in the [http://dltj.org/article/gbs-settlement-public-access/ provision of public access terminals] to all public and academic libraries and substantial [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_Oct_31/ai_n30957631/?tag=content;col1 access provisions for the visually impaired]. It should also be noted that copyright holders, as members of the reading public themselves, had a stake in ensuring that the public interest was not ignored during the negotiations. All three guests agreed that the settlement represents a substantial improvement over the status quo for everyone affected. Professor Fisher, however, suggested that "an ideal dream scenario" would be a more useful basis of comparison than the status quo, and once such an ideal was described, the settlement was found to fall short of the ideal.

''Publishers and Authors: Upholding the Copyright Regime''

From the publishers’ perspective, the litigation was essentially concerned with ensuring that copyright remains a permissions-based regime. When Google decided to start digitizing books on a massive scale, it did so without attempting to secure permission from rights holders; this move was a bold challenge to the existing regime. Publishers were also concerned about potential repercussions from Google’s practice of providing libraries with digital copies of the books scanned from their collections. Library users have [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter7/7-d.html special exemptions] under the Copyright Act to copy books in a library’s collection, and these exemptions were carved out during an era where photocopying a book, page by page, was the only means of producing such a copy. In today’s digital era, this exemption for library users, coupled with the ease of online library "use" resulting from mass digitization, could lead to much more widespread copying of books in library collections without any revenue being generated for the rights holders. It was these concerns that motivated publishers and authors to bring suit against Google.

''Libraries: Concerned About Resource Strain and the Proprietary Database''

Although the settlement would result in a net increase in public access to information, there are causes for concern from the perspective of libraries. The provision of a free public access terminal to every library represents a boon to small-town local libraries, but it likely would act as a strain on a larger libraries with more user demand, such as the New York Public Library system. The digital book database that Google is amassing would be an invaluable corpus on which to perform various types of research, and research libraries are rightfully concerned about restrictions on the use of this information. Potential problems also arise from the concentration of this corpus in the hands of a single (or small handful of) powerful private actor(s). The issue of concentrated private power over vast information is particularly alarming because the settlement effectively precludes any potential competitors from offering a comparable service in the near future.

''The Settlement Mechanism as a Problem-Solving Tool''

Additionally, considerations of institutional competence were raised. The effects of the settlement on copyright doctrine -- and in particular, the [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/technology/internet/04books.html fate of orphan works] -- are uncertain but have the potential to be far-reaching. Are broad legal issues that so fundamentally affect the public interest best decided through private litigation, or should Congress step in? Is it wise to establish such a rigid, comprehensive system for the digital book realm before we, as a society, have a better idea of how we want to structure our digital world?

''Concrete Normative Suggestions''

* Professor Nesson rejected our premise that the settlement will be accepted in its current form. He views the threats posed by this settlement to digital freedom as urgently severe and alarming; thus, he advocates active intervention in the settlement process itself. Indeed, following our class, Professor Nesson [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14227449/Letter-to-Request-Intervention-in-Authors-Guild-v-Google moved to intervene] as counsel on behalf of professors [http://www.lewishyde.com/index.html Lewis Hyde] and [http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~lewis/ Harry Lewis], and the [http://openaccesstrust.org/ Open Access Trust], although the request was [http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/92/ denied].
* Professor Zittrain sees the "golden copies" of digitized books that Google provides to participating libraries as holding great potential as instruments of change. He suggests that libraries cooperate in a large-scale creative use of these copies.
* Professor Fisher emphasized the importance of understanding the problem on the big-picture level of legal theory and social goals before electing a particular course of action by a particular institution.
* Professor Palfrey suggests three generalized improvements to the settlement that would begin to address many of the concerns that have been raised:
** Ensure the possibility of a meaningful competitive landscape, such that second-comers are not barred from success.
** Establish a means by which the public can have a meaningful level of control over the workings of the Book Rights Registry.
** Create a system of periodic review for the settlement terms. This system would not need to involve periodic wholesale review of the entire settlement by the courts; it could instead merely involve libraries negotiating sunset provisions for individual works with publishers, authors, and other rights holders.

= Teacher's Guide =

This section is intended to provide guidance to anyone interested in teaching about the Google Book Search settlement in the future. Anyone who has taught on this topic is encouraged to use this wiki page to share additional wisdom gained from the experience. The development of our plan for this class session (including our selection of the Google Books Settlement as a focus within the broader topic of the internet and publication, as well as our decisions about guests, readings, and technology use) is documented on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/Talk:The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement the discussion page].

== Evaluation of the Class ==

''Topic Breadth and Time Constraints''

The Google Book Settlement is a large, diverse, and contentious topic. Even with our efforts to limit the scope of our discussion by (a) assuming the settlement would be approved and (b) focusing primarily on concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, two hours was enough time only to scratch the surface. One way to help alleviate this difficulty would be to focus the topic even more narrowly, albeit at the cost of precluding discussion on subjects that students might find more interesting. The most significant factor contributing to the palpable time constraint, however, is the sheer complexity of the settlement itself. At over 140 pages plus appendices, the settlement contains a lot of material that must be digested before potential concerns may be formulated and discussed. [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary] does a good job of explaining the most relevant portions of the settlement, and [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann the Grimmelmann article] explains major concerns in the context of the settlement, but neither piece addresses all the relevant details. As a result, significant time was spent with Mr. Cunard answering specific questions on the terms of the settlement before the class could proceed to a more high-level discussion about concerns and potential solutions. Additionally, while each of our guests brought his own unique and insightful perspective to the settlement, we found two hours to be insufficient to appropriately accommodate three guests.

''Discussion Framework and Presence of Guests''

A substantial portion of the class discussion focused on the question of whether the pre-settlement status quo was the appropriate comparison against which the settlement should be judged. One specific alternative “dream scenario” was suggested as a potential foil to the settlement, but it seems that more could have been done with this approach. A more lively discussion of alternatives to the settlement might have emerged had the guests only been present for the first hour of the class. Planning for a portion of class discussion to take place outside the presence of the guests would have prevented monopolization of the conversation by the guests, thereby allowing for more student input and a greater diversity of ideas and proposals. In particular, by removing the “settlement expert” after a specified period of time, the amount of time spent asking detailed descriptive questions about the settlement could have been reduced, allowing more time for an open-ended normative discussion of concerns with the settlement and potential alternatives. Of course, if fundamental questions regarding the mechanics of the settlement remained or arose after the guest's departure, an informed discussion of concerns and solutions would become more difficult. In order for a closed class discussion to be productive, those leading the discussion would need to have a good grasp of the major points of the settlement and be able to act as a fall-back on descriptive matters once the guests have left.

''Use of Technology''

This class was served well by a minimal use of technology. The Berkman Question Tool was useful in providing a means for backchannel discussion while not being too distracting. It also provided fall-back questions to use if there was a lull in the discussion, with student voting (presumably) signaling which questions and topics the class found most interesting. Videoconferencing was an effective way of communicating with a remote speaker. However, the camera placement was not ideal, as it gave the remote guest a view of students' backs.

''Reading Assignments''

The amount of reading we assigned seemed proportional to a two-hour class session, and for the most part, the content of the readings was relevant to our discussion. We sought to provide a descriptive introduction of what the settlement encompasses and what issues it raises, as well as an introduction to the normative implications of the settlement. For descriptive pieces, we chose not to assign the entire settlement given its length and difficult legal language (which would have been particularly difficult for the non-law students in our class). Instead, we assigned [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Band's piece] to provide a readable summary of the settlement, some [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc selected examples] of provisions in the settlement to give a taste of the actual settlement, and [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann Grimmelmann's primer] on the chief issues raised by the settlement. As to normative pieces, we assigned what we felt were the most provocative (and the most discussed) pieces on the settlement: the [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Darnton] and [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Courant] articles, plus [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's response] to Courant. We felt the readings all served their purpose well during the class (the students seemed relatively well informed of the descriptive aspects of the settlement and its normative implications), with the sole exception being the actual settlement provisions that we assigned but whose language we did not examine closely during class. We felt that it would be useful to have students--especially law students--glimpse what the settlement's actual language looked like, but given our time constraints, we were unable to discuss the particular language and whether it would implement the settlement in the manner that the various commentators said it would.

== Suggestions for Future Iterations ==

*'''Topic Management''' - Even though our topic was narrowed to addressing the concerns of libraries and the reading public under the assumption that the proposed settlement agreement will take effect, we were able only to scratch the surface of this topic in the two hours allotted. Structuring the class around a more focused topic (perhaps looking at only one or two particular concerns) would likely allow for a deeper and more substantial discussion. As the topic becomes more focused, however, it may be more difficult to ensure that all students are interested and feel competent to contribute to the discussion. A class specifically addressing antitrust concerns, for example, would likely have alienated many of the non-law students in the class.

*'''Readings Management''' - Future iterations of this class would do well to use the readings we assigned, as they are comprehensive, yet readable, and they are currently the pieces most mentioned by those discussing the settlement, and thus knowledge of them is important for being able to participate in the discussion. The one exception is the actual settlement provisions that we assigned. Careful thought should be put into assigning portions of the settlement agreement itself as reading. Any such settlement excerpts should be selected deliberately with an eye to how they will be used in class. Parsing the language of settlement terms might alienate any non-law students in a class, so the composition of student backgrounds should be taken into account in deciding whether to assign reading from the settlement agreement. Although having a glimpse of what the actual settlement looks like may be education, it can probably be done without. One further caution is that the settlement is part of a constantly changing landscape (see our [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#History_of_the_Settlement summary of the settlement's current status]), and thus future classes on the subject will need to make sure they are up to date on the status of the settlement--for instance, whether it has been modified, accepted, or rejected. If a major change does occur, then substitute readings may be needed.

*'''Guest Management''' - Potential ideas of ways to help foster a lively class discussion that is neither dominated by the guests nor stuck on purely descriptive questions include the following:
**''Fewer guests.'' While each guest had a unique perspective on the settlement, more guests means less time for class discussion and student input, and this trade-off is especially problematic given the complexity of the settlement.
**''Pre-recorded material.'' In order to better control timing and ensure that only the most relevant and interesting guest statements are presented to the class, interviews with the guests and/or prepared statements by them could be recorded and edited. This edited final version would then be shown to the class instead of, or in conjunction with, live guests. Recorded interviews would also enable the presentation of guests who are not available on the day of the class session; for example, our class might have benefited from a recorded interview with [http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/darnton.php Robert Darnton], who was enthusiastic about participating in the discussion but was unable to join us in real time because of a schedule conflict.
**''Time limits on guests.'' Both to address timing issues and also to lead students away from descriptive questions and toward more normative discussion, the amount of time for which the guests are available could be limited. One possible arrangement would be to have the guests available for introductions and questions during the first hour, and then to have student discussion proceed during the second hour without the guests present.

*'''Technology Management''' - Technology might be used more effectively in the following ways:
**''Interest polling for planning purposes.'' The Berkman Question tool, or even an online poll, might have been used earlier in the planning process in order to determine which of the major issues the class found most interesting. This technique could have alleviated some of the problems mentioned under "topic management" above, by allowing for a more narrowly focused class while ensuring that at least a plurality of students would be interested in the discussion.
**''Videoconferencing details.'' Appropriate camera placement should be considered in advance, in order to avoid awkward arrangements such as we experienced. Videoconferencing also offers a convenient way of limiting the period of time during which the guests are available, whereas ushering out live guests would be more difficult.

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-05-15T14:27:24Z

Lbaker: /* Suggestions for Future Iterations */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''Topic Date:''' March 30

back to [[syllabus]]

= Concrete Questions of the Week =

How will [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_book_search the Google book digitization project] affect various interests, including those who were parties to the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf 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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
In 2004, [http://www.google.com/ Google] began [http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/print_library.html to digitally scan books] from the university library collections of Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and the University of Michigan, as well as from the New York Public Library system. Google provided a service, [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search (GBS)], whereby users could search within these digitized books. The service allowed users to search and view the entire content of books in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain public domain], but it also permitted searching copyrighted books, providing short [http://books.google.com/googlebooks/screenshots.html#snippetview "snippets"] containing the search term and some surrounding text.

Crying foul, the [http://www.authorsguild.org/ Authors Guild], a writers' advocacy group, initiated a [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/authors-guild-v-google/Authors%20Guild%20v%20Google%2009202005.pdf class action law suit] on September 20, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Infringement copyright infringement]. The [http://www.publishers.org/ Association of American Publishers (AAP)] followed with a [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/mcgraw-hill/McGraw-Hill%20v.%20Google%2010192005.pdf suit of their own] on October 19, 2005. Google [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112958982689471238.html responded] that its actions were lawful under the doctrine of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use fair use]. Rather than fight that battle, however, Google decided to settle with the Authors Guild and the AAP.

The parties announced a [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] on October 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny_Chin Judge Denny Chin] is supervising the settlement process. Under the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14741799/SDNY-Order-Extending-Deadline-to-September-4 current schedule], authors have until September 4, 2009 to opt out of the settlement, and the court will hold a final hearing on October 7, 2009, after which it will accept or reject the settlement. On April 14, 2009, Professor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Nesson Charles Nesson] filed a [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14227449/Letter-to-Request-Intervention-in-Authors-Guild-v-Google motion to intervene] in the lawsuit as counsel on behalf of authors and professors [http://www.lewishyde.com/index.html Lewis Hyde] and [http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~lewis/ Harry Lewis], and the [http://openaccesstrust.org/ Open Access Trust], and on April 17, 2009, the [http://www.archive.org/index.php Internet Archive], an online library, also [http://www.opencontentalliance.org/2009/04/17/internet-archive-files-intervention-request/ sought to intervene,] but Judge Chin [http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/92/ denied their requests.] On May 4, 2009, a number of library associations [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/googlebrieffinal.pdf filed a brief] requesting that the court "vigorously" supervise implementation of the settlement, should it be approved. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/internet/29google.html?_r=3&hp reportedly commenced a review] of the settlement's legality under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law antitrust law.]

== Content of the Settlement ==
The [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] creates an entirely new legal regime for book digitization. Under the settlement, Google will continue to offer GBS, but it will now have to pay authors and publishers for books still under copyright from the revenue it makes from advertising and selling access to the books. To facilitate payment, the settlement creates a new entity called the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_Rights_Registry Book Rights Registry (BRR)], an independent body chaired by an equal number of author and publisher representatives and charged with maintaining a database of book copyrights and implementing 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 channeled to the BRR for distribution to rights owners. The BRR also possesses other powers. For instance, the BRR has some discretion over dividing revenues between publishers and authors, has some approval power over Google’s security standards, will help shape the pricing of books, and can even license copyrights to third parties besides Google. The settlement is thus non-exclusive to Google, but there is a [http://dltj.org/article/first-formal-gbs-objections/ “most favored nation clause”] that requires the BRR to give Google at least as good terms as any other third-party for the 10 years after the settlement’s approval.

Users of GBS will continue to be able to search the contents of books, but instead of returning "snippets," search results will depend on the type of book. The settlement places each book in one of three categories. First are public domain books, which users will continue to be able to view in their entirety. It is estimated that about 20% of GBS books are in the public domain. Second are books that are in-copyright and commercially available, which means that they are available for sale new through a “customary channel of trade” (e.g. can you get it new at Amazon?). For these books, GBS will display only bibliographic information and "front material" (copyright page, table of contents, index, etc.). About 10% of GBS books are estimated to be in-copyright and commercially available. Third are books that are in-copyright but not commercially available, which account for an estimated 70% of GBS books, and thus make up the bulk of what is covered by the settlement. For these books, users will be able to view up to 20% of the book (with some restrictions). Rightsholders may choose to deviate from these default settings and individually set the amount of each of their books available for users to view. Institutions and individual users will also have the option of paying for permanent online access to the full content of digitized books. The initial price of the institutional subscription will depend on the type of institution (whether it is a corporation, a library, or a government office), how many people are members of the institution, and by reference to the price of products and services “comparable” to GBS.

Libraries are also specifically addressed by the settlement. Each public and academic library will be [http://dltj.org/article/gbs-settlement-public-access/ allowed a single GBS terminal] that will display the entire content of the Institutional Subscription Database (ISD), essentially a database comprised of all books that are in-copyright but not commercially available. Academic libraries will be allowed to have multiple terminals with such access, based on the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled at their respective schools. Institutions may also purchase subscriptions to the ISD. "Fully participating libraries" are given digital copies of any book scanned from their collections, as well as digital copies of books that are in their collection but were scanned from another library, provided that a sufficient proportion of their own collection has been digitized.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] (or at least a [http://paulcourant.net/2008/10/28/the-google-settlement-from-the-universal-library-to-the-universal-bookstore/ "universal bookstore"]) and for [http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/on_the_google_book_search_agre.html providing more access] than may have been permitted under fair use if the case had gone to trial (though [http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/10/google-book-search-settlement.html some question] that latter assessment). 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 direct 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 and develop ways of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Outline of Class Plan =

We will be working from the assumption that the current proposed settlement will be approved by the court. Within the framework that this settlement establishes, then, how can we mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the reading public? We hope to explore the contours of these problems and produce an array of possible solutions.

'''Class time will be segmented as follows:'''
* The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, provided by the student presenters responsible for this class session.
* Then, each of our three [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Guests guests] will be given ten minutes to present his views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above.
* After our guests have introduced their perspectives on the settlement, we will follow up with questions we have prepared for them. These questions are designed to ensure that all important aspects of the settlement and its expected effects are brought up.
* Finally, we will open the session to class discussion, guided by the Berkman Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]). The discussion will be focused on normative suggestions for how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement in the wake of its (presumed) approval by the court.

'''Substantive concerns generally fall within one of the following categories:'''
* Access (including permitted free uses, number of public terminals, and subscription costs)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* International Implications (with respect both to settlement coverage of international authors publishing in the U.S. and to GBS access by individuals located outside of the U.S.)
* Privacy and Security (including monitoring or data-mining reader habits and censorship)
* User Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection-like organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =

Three guests will be participating in our class session. Two of them will be joining us live, and one will join us over videoconference. All three guests will be present for the duration of the class session.

* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm [http://www.debevoise.com/ Debevoise & Plimpton LLP].
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/ here].)
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/chooser.php the Berkman Question Tool]! (The instance name for our class session is IIFGBS, and it is located [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS here].) Before the day of our class session, we will seed the question tool with some questions that we feel are particularly relevant and topical. We encourage everyone to take a look at these questions prior to the class and to make comments, add more questions, and vote up the questions you find most interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the class discussion, especially in the final portion of the class.

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf This summary of the settlement], prepared by [http://www.policybandwidth.com/ Jonathan Band] on behalf of [http://www.arl.org/ the Association of Research Libraries] and [http://www.ala.org/ the American Library Association].

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc These selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann This article] by [http://james.grimmelmann.net/ James Grimmelmann], outlining potential problems with and revisions to the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 This New York Review of Books article] by [http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/darnton.php Robert Darnton] criticizing the settlement. (Or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms] on [http://www.npr.org/ National Public Radio].)

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ This letter in response to Darnton] by [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pnc/ Paul Courant] (head of the University of Michigan's library, a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 This New York Review of Books piece] by Darnton in response to Courant's challenges. (Skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is less detailed than the one posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page.)

== Optional Readings ==

*Experiment with the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://waltcrawford.name/ Walt Crawford] of [http://citesandinsights.info/ Cites and Insights] has compiled [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf this 30-page newsletter (PDF)], which includes excerpts from an enormous number of blog posts, accompanied by his own commentary. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://radar.oreilly.com/peter/ Peter Brantley] of [http://peterbrantley.com/ shimenawa] offers [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain this blog post] critiquing the settlement as insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to provide readers with a more transformative interface that would enable them to alter the texts of books.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] introduces [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Kahle Brewster Kahle] and his [http://www.archive.org/index.php Internet Archive] as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*[http://pureinformation.org/about/ Timothy Vollmer] of [http://pureinformation.org/ pureinformation.org] has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Session Recap =

The class session was dominated largely by discussion among our three guests, punctuated by questions from the class. What follows below is a thematic summary of the views that were expressed during this discussion. For a more detailed account of the class session (including diachronic notes on the guests' presentations, the live discussion, and the online discussion, as well as lists of our prepared questions), see our [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Class_Notes_03.30.09.pdf edited class notes].

''A Private Settlement With Benefits for Everyone''

Despite the many concerns (e.g. [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Darnton's]) and settlement amendment proposals (e.g. [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann Grimmelmann's]) raised in newspapers and the blogosphere, it is important to remember that this settlement is the (presumptive) result of actual litigation between specific parties. The parties have taken care to incorporate other interests into the negotiation process, but at its core the settlement is designed to satisfy the concerns of publishers and authors that led them to sue Google in the first place. Nonetheless, major libraries had a presence during the negotiations, participating both directly and through Google. The public interest was also taken into account in a variety of ways, culminating in the [http://dltj.org/article/gbs-settlement-public-access/ provision of public access terminals] to all public and academic libraries and substantial [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_Oct_31/ai_n30957631/?tag=content;col1 access provisions for the visually impaired]. It should also be noted that copyright holders, as members of the reading public themselves, had a stake in ensuring that the public interest was not ignored during the negotiations. All three guests agreed that the settlement represents a substantial improvement over the status quo for everyone affected. Professor Fisher, however, suggested that "an ideal dream scenario" would be a more useful basis of comparison than the status quo, and once such an ideal was described, the settlement was found to fall short of the ideal.

''Publishers and Authors: Upholding the Copyright Regime''

From the publishers’ perspective, the litigation was essentially concerned with ensuring that copyright remains a permissions-based regime. When Google decided to start digitizing books on a massive scale, it did so without attempting to secure permission from rights holders; this move was a bold challenge to the existing regime. Publishers were also concerned about potential repercussions from Google’s practice of providing libraries with digital copies of the books scanned from their collections. Library users have [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter7/7-d.html special exemptions] under the Copyright Act to copy books in a library’s collection, and these exemptions were carved out during an era where photocopying a book, page by page, was the only means of producing such a copy. In today’s digital era, this exemption for library users, coupled with the ease of online library "use" resulting from mass digitization, could lead to much more widespread copying of books in library collections without any revenue being generated for the rights holders. It was these concerns that motivated publishers and authors to bring suit against Google.

''Libraries: Concerned About Resource Strain and the Proprietary Database''

Although the settlement would result in a net increase in public access to information, there are causes for concern from the perspective of libraries. The provision of a free public access terminal to every library represents a boon to small-town local libraries, but it likely would act as a strain on a larger libraries with more user demand, such as the New York Public Library system. The digital book database that Google is amassing would be an invaluable corpus on which to perform various types of research, and research libraries are rightfully concerned about restrictions on the use of this information. Potential problems also arise from the concentration of this corpus in the hands of a single (or small handful of) powerful private actor(s). The issue of concentrated private power over vast information is particularly alarming because the settlement effectively precludes any potential competitors from offering a comparable service in the near future.

''The Settlement Mechanism as a Problem-Solving Tool''

Additionally, considerations of institutional competence were raised. The effects of the settlement on copyright doctrine -- and in particular, the [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/technology/internet/04books.html fate of orphan works] -- are uncertain but have the potential to be far-reaching. Are broad legal issues that so fundamentally affect the public interest best decided through private litigation, or should Congress step in? Is it wise to establish such a rigid, comprehensive system for the digital book realm before we, as a society, have a better idea of how we want to structure our digital world?

''Concrete Normative Suggestions''

* Professor Nesson rejected our premise that the settlement will be accepted in its current form. He views the threats posed by this settlement to digital freedom as urgently severe and alarming; thus, he advocates active intervention in the settlement process itself. Indeed, following our class, Professor Nesson [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14227449/Letter-to-Request-Intervention-in-Authors-Guild-v-Google moved to intervene] as counsel on behalf of professors [http://www.lewishyde.com/index.html Lewis Hyde] and [http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~lewis/ Harry Lewis], and the [http://openaccesstrust.org/ Open Access Trust], although the request was [http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/92/ denied].
* Professor Zittrain sees the "golden copies" of digitized books that Google provides to participating libraries as holding great potential as instruments of change. He suggests that libraries cooperate in a large-scale creative use of these copies.
* Professor Fisher emphasized the importance of understanding the problem on the big-picture level of legal theory and social goals before electing a particular course of action by a particular institution.
* Professor Palfrey suggests three generalized improvements to the settlement that would begin to address many of the concerns that have been raised:
** Ensure the possibility of a meaningful competitive landscape, such that second-comers are not barred from success.
** Establish a means by which the public can have a meaningful level of control over the workings of the Book Rights Registry.
** Create a system of periodic review for the settlement terms. This system would not need to involve periodic wholesale review of the entire settlement by the courts; it could instead merely involve libraries negotiating sunset provisions for individual works with publishers, authors, and other rights holders.

= Teacher's Guide =

This section is intended to provide guidance to anyone interested in teaching about the Google Book Search settlement in the future. Anyone who has taught on this topic is encouraged to use this wiki page to share additional wisdom gained from the experience. The development of our plan for this class session (including our selection of the Google Books Settlement as a focus within the broader topic of the internet and publication, as well as our decisions about guests, readings, and technology use) is documented on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/Talk:The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement the discussion page].

== Evaluation of the Class ==

''Topic Breadth and Time Constraints''

The Google Book Settlement is a large, diverse, and contentious topic. Even with our efforts to limit the scope of our discussion by (a) assuming the settlement would be approved and (b) focusing primarily on concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, two hours was enough time only to scratch the surface. One way to help alleviate this difficulty would be to focus the topic even more narrowly, albeit at the cost of precluding discussion on subjects that students might find more interesting. The most significant factor contributing to the palpable time constraint, however, is the sheer complexity of the settlement itself. At over 140 pages plus appendices, the settlement contains a lot of material that must be digested before potential concerns may be formulated and discussed. [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary] does a good job of explaining the most relevant portions of the settlement, and [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann the Grimmelmann article] explains major concerns in the context of the settlement, but neither piece addresses all the relevant details. As a result, significant time was spent with Mr. Cunard answering specific questions on the terms of the settlement before the class could proceed to a more high-level discussion about concerns and potential solutions. Additionally, while each of our guests brought his own unique and insightful perspective to the settlement, we found two hours to be insufficient to appropriately accommodate three guests.

''Discussion Framework and Presence of Guests''

A substantial portion of the class discussion focused on the question of whether the pre-settlement status quo was the appropriate comparison against which the settlement should be judged. One specific alternative “dream scenario” was suggested as a potential foil to the settlement, but it seems that more could have been done with this approach. A more lively discussion of alternatives to the settlement might have emerged had the guests only been present for the first hour of the class. Planning for a portion of class discussion to take place outside the presence of the guests would have prevented monopolization of the conversation by the guests, thereby allowing for more student input and a greater diversity of ideas and proposals. In particular, by removing the “settlement expert” after a specified period of time, the amount of time spent asking detailed descriptive questions about the settlement could have been reduced, allowing more time for an open-ended normative discussion of concerns with the settlement and potential alternatives. Of course, if fundamental questions regarding the mechanics of the settlement remained or arose after the guest's departure, an informed discussion of concerns and solutions would become more difficult. In order for a closed class discussion to be productive, those leading the discussion would need to have a good grasp of the major points of the settlement and be able to act as a fall-back on descriptive matters once the guests have left.

''Use of Technology''

This class was served well by a minimal use of technology. The Berkman Question Tool was useful in providing a means for backchannel discussion while not being too distracting. It also provided fall-back questions to use if there was a lull in the discussion, with student voting (presumably) signaling which questions and topics the class found most interesting. Videoconferencing was an effective way of communicating with a remote speaker. However, the camera placement was not ideal, as it gave the remote guest a view of students' backs.

''Reading Assignments''

The amount of reading we assigned seemed proportional to a two-hour class session, and for the most part, the content of the readings was relevant to our discussion. We sought to provide a descriptive introduction of what the settlement encompasses and what issues it raises, as well as an introduction to the normative implications of the settlement. For descriptive pieces, we chose not to assign the entire settlement given its length and difficult legal language (which would have been particularly difficult for the non-law students in our class). Instead, we assigned [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Band's piece] to provide a readable summary of the settlement, some [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc selected examples] of provisions in the settlement to give a taste of the actual settlement, and [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann Grimmelmann's primer] on the chief issues raised by the settlement. As to normative pieces, we assigned what we felt were the most provocative (and the most discussed) pieces on the settlement: the [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Darnton] and [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Courant] articles, plus [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's response] to Courant. We felt the readings all served their purpose well during the class (the students seemed relatively well informed of the descriptive aspects of the settlement and its normative implications), with the sole exception being the actual settlement provisions that we assigned but whose language we did not examine closely during class. We felt that it would be useful to have students--especially law students--glimpse what the settlement's actual language looked like, but given our time constraints, we were unable to discuss the particular language and whether it would implement the settlement in the manner that the various commentators said it would.

== Suggestions for Future Iterations ==

*'''Topic Management''' - Even though our topic was narrowed to addressing the concerns of libraries and the reading public under the assumption that the proposed settlement agreement will take effect, we were able only to scratch the surface of this topic in the two hours allotted. Structuring the class around a more focused topic (perhaps looking at only one or two particular concerns) would likely allow for a deeper and more substantial discussion. As the topic becomes more focused, however, it may be more difficult to ensure that all students are interested and feel competent to contribute to the discussion. A class specifically addressing antitrust concerns, for example, would likely have alienated many of the non-law students in the class.

*'''Readings Management''' - Future iterations of this class would do well to use the readings we assigned, as they are comprehensive, yet readable, and they are currently the pieces most mentioned by those discussing the settlement, and thus knowledge of them is important for being able to participate in the discussion. The one exception is the actual settlement provisions that we assigned. Careful thought should be put into assigning portions of the settlement agreement itself as reading. Any such settlement excerpts should be selected deliberately with an eye to how they will be used in class. Parsing the language of settlement terms might alienate any non-law students in a class, so the composition of student backgrounds should be taken into account in deciding whether to assign reading from the settlement agreement. Although having a glimpse of what the actual settlement looks like may be education, it can probably be done without. One further caution is that the settlement is part of a constantly changing landscape (see our [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#History_of_the_Settlement summary of the settlement's current status]), and thus future classes on the subject will need to make sure they are up to date on the status of the settlement--for instance, whether it has been modified, accepted, or rejected. If a major change does occur, then substitute readings may be needed.

*'''Guest Management''' - Potential ideas of ways to help foster a lively class discussion that is neither dominated by the guests nor stuck on purely descriptive questions include the following:
**''Fewer guests.'' While each guest had a unique perspective on the settlement, more guests means less time for class discussion and student input, and this trade-off is especially problematic given the complexity of the settlement.
**''Pre-recorded material.'' In order to better control timing and ensure that only the most relevant and interesting guest statements are presented to the class, interviews with the guests and/or prepared statements by them could be recorded and edited. This edited final version would then be shown to the class instead of, or in conjunction with, live guests. Recorded interviews would also enable the presentation of guests who are not available on the day of the class session; for example, our class might have benefited from a recorded interview with [http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/darnton.php Robert Darnton], who was enthusiastic about participating in the discussion but was unable to join us in real time because of a schedule conflict.
**''Time limits on guests.'' Both to address timing issues and also to lead students away from descriptive questions and toward more normative discussion, the amount of time for which the guests are available could be limited. One possible arrangement would be to have the guests available for introductions and questions during the first hour, and then to have student discussion proceed during the second hour without the guests present.

*'''Technology Management''' - Technology might be used more effectively in the following ways:
**''Interest polling for planning purposes.'' The Berkman Question tool, or even an online poll, might have been used earlier in the planning process in order to determine which of the major issues the class found most interesting. This technique could have alleviated some of the problems mentioned under "topic management" above, by allowing for a more narrowly focused class while ensuring that at least a plurality of students would be interested in the discussion.
**''Videoconferencing details.'' Appropriate camera placement should be considered in advance, in order to avoid an awkward arrangement like the one we had. Videoconferencing also offers a convenient way of limiting the period of time during which the guests are available, whereas ushering out live guests would be more difficult.

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-05-15T14:09:49Z

Lbaker: /* Content of the Settlement */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''Topic Date:''' March 30

back to [[syllabus]]

= Concrete Questions of the Week =

How will [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_book_search the Google book digitization project] affect various interests, including those who were parties to the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf 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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
In 2004, [http://www.google.com/ Google] began [http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/print_library.html to digitally scan books] from the university library collections of Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and the University of Michigan, as well as from the New York Public Library system. Google provided a service, [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search (GBS)], whereby users could search within these digitized books. The service allowed users to search and view the entire content of books in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain public domain], but it also permitted searching copyrighted books, providing short [http://books.google.com/googlebooks/screenshots.html#snippetview "snippets"] containing the search term and some surrounding text.

Crying foul, the [http://www.authorsguild.org/ Authors Guild], a writers' advocacy group, initiated a [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/authors-guild-v-google/Authors%20Guild%20v%20Google%2009202005.pdf class action law suit] on September 20, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Infringement copyright infringement]. The [http://www.publishers.org/ Association of American Publishers (AAP)] followed with a [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/mcgraw-hill/McGraw-Hill%20v.%20Google%2010192005.pdf suit of their own] on October 19, 2005. Google [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112958982689471238.html responded] that its actions were lawful under the doctrine of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use fair use]. Rather than fight that battle, however, Google decided to settle with the Authors Guild and the AAP.

The parties announced a [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] on October 28, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny_Chin Judge Denny Chin] is supervising the settlement process. Under the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14741799/SDNY-Order-Extending-Deadline-to-September-4 current schedule], authors have until September 4, 2009 to opt out of the settlement, and the court will hold a final hearing on October 7, 2009, after which it will accept or reject the settlement. On April 14, 2009, Professor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Nesson Charles Nesson] filed a [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14227449/Letter-to-Request-Intervention-in-Authors-Guild-v-Google motion to intervene] in the lawsuit as counsel on behalf of authors and professors [http://www.lewishyde.com/index.html Lewis Hyde] and [http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~lewis/ Harry Lewis], and the [http://openaccesstrust.org/ Open Access Trust], and on April 17, 2009, the [http://www.archive.org/index.php Internet Archive], an online library, also [http://www.opencontentalliance.org/2009/04/17/internet-archive-files-intervention-request/ sought to intervene,] but Judge Chin [http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/92/ denied their requests.] On May 4, 2009, a number of library associations [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/googlebrieffinal.pdf filed a brief] requesting that the court "vigorously" supervise implementation of the settlement, should it be approved. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/internet/29google.html?_r=3&hp reportedly commenced a review] of the settlement's legality under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law antitrust law.]

== Content of the Settlement ==
The [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] creates an entirely new legal regime for book digitization. Under the settlement, Google will continue to offer GBS, but it will now have to pay authors and publishers for books still under copyright from the revenue it makes from advertising and selling access to the books. To facilitate payment, the settlement creates a new entity called the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_Rights_Registry Book Rights Registry (BRR)], an independent body chaired by an equal number of author and publisher representatives and charged with maintaining a database of book copyrights and implementing 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 channeled to the BRR for distribution to rights owners. The BRR also possesses other powers. For instance, the BRR has some discretion over dividing revenues between publishers and authors, has some approval power over Google’s security standards, will help shape the pricing of books, and can even license copyrights to third parties besides Google. The settlement is thus non-exclusive to Google, but there is a [http://dltj.org/article/first-formal-gbs-objections/ “most favored nation clause”] that requires the BRR to give Google at least as good terms as any other third-party for the 10 years after the settlement’s approval.

Users of GBS will continue to be able to search the contents of books, but instead of returning "snippets," search results will depend on the type of book. The settlement places each book in one of three categories. First are public domain books, which users will continue to be able to view in their entirety. It is estimated that about 20% of GBS books are in the public domain. Second are books that are in-copyright and commercially available, which means that they are available for sale new through a “customary channel of trade” (e.g. can you get it new at Amazon?). For these books, GBS will display only bibliographic information and "front material" (copyright page, table of contents, index, etc.). About 10% of GBS books are estimated to be in-copyright and commercially available. Third are books that are in-copyright but not commercially available, which account for an estimated 70% of GBS books, and thus make up the bulk of what is covered by the settlement. For these books, users will be able to view up to 20% of the book (with some restrictions). Rightsholders may choose to deviate from these default settings and individually set the amount of each of their books available for users to view. Institutions and individual users will also have the option of paying for permanent online access to the full content of digitized books. The initial price of the institutional subscription will depend on the type of institution (whether it is a corporation, a library, or a government office), how many people are members of the institution, and by reference to the price of products and services “comparable” to GBS.

Libraries are also specifically addressed by the settlement. Each public and academic library will be [http://dltj.org/article/gbs-settlement-public-access/ allowed a single GBS terminal] that will display the entire content of the Institutional Subscription Database (ISD), essentially a database comprised of all books that are in-copyright but not commercially available. Academic libraries will be allowed to have multiple terminals with such access, based on the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled at their respective schools. Institutions may also purchase subscriptions to the ISD. "Fully participating libraries" are given digital copies of any book scanned from their collections, as well as digital copies of books that are in their collection but were scanned from another library, provided that a sufficient proportion of their own collection has been digitized.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] (or at least a [http://paulcourant.net/2008/10/28/the-google-settlement-from-the-universal-library-to-the-universal-bookstore/ "universal bookstore"]) and for [http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/on_the_google_book_search_agre.html providing more access] than may have been permitted under fair use if the case had gone to trial (though [http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/10/google-book-search-settlement.html some question] that latter assessment). 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 direct 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 and develop ways of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Outline of Class Plan =

We will be working from the assumption that the current proposed settlement will be approved by the court. Within the framework that this settlement establishes, then, how can we mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the reading public? We hope to explore the contours of these problems and produce an array of possible solutions.

'''Class time will be segmented as follows:'''
* The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, provided by the student presenters responsible for this class session.
* Then, each of our three [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Guests guests] will be given ten minutes to present his views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above.
* After our guests have introduced their perspectives on the settlement, we will follow up with questions we have prepared for them. These questions are designed to ensure that all important aspects of the settlement and its expected effects are brought up.
* Finally, we will open the session to class discussion, guided by the Berkman Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]). The discussion will be focused on normative suggestions for how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement in the wake of its (presumed) approval by the court.

'''Substantive concerns generally fall within one of the following categories:'''
* Access (including permitted free uses, number of public terminals, and subscription costs)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* International Implications (with respect both to settlement coverage of international authors publishing in the U.S. and to GBS access by individuals located outside of the U.S.)
* Privacy and Security (including monitoring or data-mining reader habits and censorship)
* User Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection-like organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =

Three guests will be participating in our class session. Two of them will be joining us live, and one will join us over videoconference. All three guests will be present for the duration of the class session.

* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm [http://www.debevoise.com/ Debevoise & Plimpton LLP].
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/ here].)
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/chooser.php the Berkman Question Tool]! (The instance name for our class session is IIFGBS, and it is located [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS here].) Before the day of our class session, we will seed the question tool with some questions that we feel are particularly relevant and topical. We encourage everyone to take a look at these questions prior to the class and to make comments, add more questions, and vote up the questions you find most interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the class discussion, especially in the final portion of the class.

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf This summary of the settlement], prepared by [http://www.policybandwidth.com/ Jonathan Band] on behalf of [http://www.arl.org/ the Association of Research Libraries] and [http://www.ala.org/ the American Library Association].

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc These selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann This article] by [http://james.grimmelmann.net/ James Grimmelmann], outlining potential problems with and revisions to the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 This New York Review of Books article] by [http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/darnton.php Robert Darnton] criticizing the settlement. (Or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms] on [http://www.npr.org/ National Public Radio].)

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ This letter in response to Darnton] by [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pnc/ Paul Courant] (head of the University of Michigan's library, a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 This New York Review of Books piece] by Darnton in response to Courant's challenges. (Skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is less detailed than the one posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page.)

== Optional Readings ==

*Experiment with the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://waltcrawford.name/ Walt Crawford] of [http://citesandinsights.info/ Cites and Insights] has compiled [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf this 30-page newsletter (PDF)], which includes excerpts from an enormous number of blog posts, accompanied by his own commentary. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://radar.oreilly.com/peter/ Peter Brantley] of [http://peterbrantley.com/ shimenawa] offers [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain this blog post] critiquing the settlement as insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to provide readers with a more transformative interface that would enable them to alter the texts of books.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] introduces [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Kahle Brewster Kahle] and his [http://www.archive.org/index.php Internet Archive] as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*[http://pureinformation.org/about/ Timothy Vollmer] of [http://pureinformation.org/ pureinformation.org] has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Session Recap =

The class session was dominated largely by discussion among our three guests, punctuated by questions from the class. What follows below is a thematic summary of the views that were expressed during this discussion. For a more detailed account of the class session (including diachronic notes on the guests' presentations, the live discussion, and the online discussion, as well as lists of our prepared questions), see our [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Class_Notes_03.30.09.pdf edited class notes].

''A Private Settlement With Benefits for Everyone''

Despite the many concerns (e.g. [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Darnton's]) and settlement amendment proposals (e.g. [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann Grimmelmann's]) raised in newspapers and the blogosphere, it is important to remember that this settlement is the (presumptive) result of actual litigation between specific parties. The parties have taken care to incorporate other interests into the negotiation process, but at its core the settlement is designed to satisfy the concerns of publishers and authors that led them to sue Google in the first place. Nonetheless, major libraries had a presence during the negotiations, participating both directly and through Google. The public interest was also taken into account in a variety of ways, culminating in the [http://dltj.org/article/gbs-settlement-public-access/ provision of public access terminals] to all public and academic libraries and substantial [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_Oct_31/ai_n30957631/?tag=content;col1 access provisions for the visually impaired]. It should also be noted that copyright holders, as members of the reading public themselves, had a stake in ensuring that the public interest was not ignored during the negotiations. All three guests agreed that the settlement represents a substantial improvement over the status quo for everyone affected. Professor Fisher, however, suggested that "an ideal dream scenario" would be a more useful basis of comparison than the status quo, and once such an ideal was described, the settlement was found to fall short of the ideal.

''Publishers and Authors: Upholding the Copyright Regime''

From the publishers’ perspective, the litigation was essentially concerned with ensuring that copyright remains a permissions-based regime. When Google decided to start digitizing books on a massive scale, it did so without attempting to secure permission from rights holders; this move was a bold challenge to the existing regime. Publishers were also concerned about potential repercussions from Google’s practice of providing libraries with digital copies of the books scanned from their collections. Library users have [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter7/7-d.html special exemptions] under the Copyright Act to copy books in a library’s collection, and these exemptions were carved out during an era where photocopying a book, page by page, was the only means of producing such a copy. In today’s digital era, this exemption for library users, coupled with the ease of online library "use" resulting from mass digitization, could lead to much more widespread copying of books in library collections without any revenue being generated for the rights holders. It was these concerns that motivated publishers and authors to bring suit against Google.

''Libraries: Concerned About Resource Strain and the Proprietary Database''

Although the settlement would result in a net increase in public access to information, there are causes for concern from the perspective of libraries. The provision of a free public access terminal to every library represents a boon to small-town local libraries, but it likely would act as a strain on a larger libraries with more user demand, such as the New York Public Library system. The digital book database that Google is amassing would be an invaluable corpus on which to perform various types of research, and research libraries are rightfully concerned about restrictions on the use of this information. Potential problems also arise from the concentration of this corpus in the hands of a single (or small handful of) powerful private actor(s). The issue of concentrated private power over vast information is particularly alarming because the settlement effectively precludes any potential competitors from offering a comparable service in the near future.

''The Settlement Mechanism as a Problem-Solving Tool''

Additionally, considerations of institutional competence were raised. The effects of the settlement on copyright doctrine -- and in particular, the [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/technology/internet/04books.html fate of orphan works] -- are uncertain but have the potential to be far-reaching. Are broad legal issues that so fundamentally affect the public interest best decided through private litigation, or should Congress step in? Is it wise to establish such a rigid, comprehensive system for the digital book realm before we, as a society, have a better idea of how we want to structure our digital world?

''Concrete Normative Suggestions''

* Professor Nesson rejected our premise that the settlement will be accepted in its current form. He views the threats posed by this settlement to digital freedom as urgently severe and alarming; thus, he advocates active intervention in the settlement process itself. Indeed, following our class, Professor Nesson [http://www.scribd.com/doc/14227449/Letter-to-Request-Intervention-in-Authors-Guild-v-Google moved to intervene] as counsel on behalf of professors [http://www.lewishyde.com/index.html Lewis Hyde] and [http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~lewis/ Harry Lewis], and the [http://openaccesstrust.org/ Open Access Trust], although the request was [http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/92/ denied].
* Professor Zittrain sees the "golden copies" of digitized books that Google provides to participating libraries as holding great potential as instruments of change. He suggests that libraries cooperate in a large-scale creative use of these copies.
* Professor Fisher emphasized the importance of understanding the problem on the big-picture level of legal theory and social goals before electing a particular course of action by a particular institution.
* Professor Palfrey suggests three generalized improvements to the settlement that would begin to address many of the concerns that have been raised:
** Ensure the possibility of a meaningful competitive landscape, such that second-comers are not barred from success.
** Establish a means by which the public can have a meaningful level of control over the workings of the Book Rights Registry.
** Create a system of periodic review for the settlement terms. This system would not need to involve periodic wholesale review of the entire settlement by the courts; it could instead merely involve libraries negotiating sunset provisions for individual works with publishers, authors, and other rights holders.

= Teacher's Guide =

This section is intended to provide guidance to anyone interested in teaching about the Google Book Search settlement in the future. Anyone who has taught on this topic is encouraged to use this wiki page to share additional wisdom gained from the experience. The development of our plan for this class session (including our selection of the Google Books Settlement as a focus within the broader topic of the internet and publication, as well as our decisions about guests, readings, and technology use) is documented on [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/Talk:The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement the discussion page].

== Evaluation of the Class ==

''Topic Breadth and Time Constraints''

The Google Book Settlement is a large, diverse, and contentious topic. Even with our efforts to limit the scope of our discussion by (a) assuming the settlement would be approved and (b) focusing primarily on concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, two hours was enough time only to scratch the surface. One way to help alleviate this difficulty would be to focus the topic even more narrowly, albeit at the cost of precluding discussion on subjects that students might find more interesting. The most significant factor contributing to the palpable time constraint, however, is the sheer complexity of the settlement itself. At over 140 pages plus appendices, the settlement contains a lot of material that must be digested before potential concerns may be formulated and discussed. [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary] does a good job of explaining the most relevant portions of the settlement, and [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann the Grimmelmann article] explains major concerns in the context of the settlement, but neither piece addresses all the relevant details. As a result, significant time was spent with Mr. Cunard answering specific questions on the terms of the settlement before the class could proceed to a more high-level discussion about concerns and potential solutions. Additionally, while each of our guests brought his own unique and insightful perspective to the settlement, we found two hours to be insufficient to appropriately accommodate three guests.

''Discussion Framework and Presence of Guests''

A substantial portion of the class discussion focused on the question of whether the pre-settlement status quo was the appropriate comparison against which the settlement should be judged. One specific alternative “dream scenario” was suggested as a potential foil to the settlement, but it seems that more could have been done with this approach. A more lively discussion of alternatives to the settlement might have emerged had the guests only been present for the first hour of the class. Planning for a portion of class discussion to take place outside the presence of the guests would have prevented monopolization of the conversation by the guests, thereby allowing for more student input and a greater diversity of ideas and proposals. In particular, by removing the “settlement expert” after a specified period of time, the amount of time spent asking detailed descriptive questions about the settlement could have been reduced, allowing more time for an open-ended normative discussion of concerns with the settlement and potential alternatives. Of course, if fundamental questions regarding the mechanics of the settlement remained or arose after the guest's departure, an informed discussion of concerns and solutions would become more difficult. In order for a closed class discussion to be productive, those leading the discussion would need to have a good grasp of the major points of the settlement and be able to act as a fall-back on descriptive matters once the guests have left.

''Use of Technology''

This class was served well by a minimal use of technology. The Berkman Question Tool was useful in providing a means for backchannel discussion while not being too distracting. It also provided fall-back questions to use if there was a lull in the discussion, with student voting (presumably) signaling which questions and topics the class found most interesting. Videoconferencing was an effective way of communicating with a remote speaker. However, the camera placement was not ideal, as it gave the remote guest a view of students' backs.

''Reading Assignments''

The amount of reading we assigned seemed proportional to a two-hour class session, and for the most part, the content of the readings was relevant to our discussion. We sought to provide a descriptive introduction of what the settlement encompasses and what issues it raises, as well as an introduction to the normative implications of the settlement. For descriptive pieces, we chose not to assign the entire settlement given its length and difficult legal language (which would have been particularly difficult for the non-law students in our class). Instead, we assigned [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Band's piece] to provide a readable summary of the settlement, some [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc selected examples] of provisions in the settlement to give a taste of the actual settlement, and [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann Grimmelmann's primer] on the chief issues raised by the settlement. As to normative pieces, we assigned what we felt were the most provocative (and the most discussed) pieces on the settlement: the [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Darnton] and [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Courant] articles, plus [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's response] to Courant. We felt the readings all served their purpose well during the class (the students seemed relatively well informed of the descriptive aspects of the settlement and its normative implications), with the sole exception being the actual settlement provisions that we assigned but whose language we did not examine closely during class. We felt that it would be useful to have students--especially law students--glimpse what the settlement's actual language looked like, but given our time constraints, we were unable to discuss the particular language and whether it would implement the settlement in the manner that the various commentators said it would.

== Suggestions for Future Iterations ==

*'''Topic Management''' - Even though our topic was narrowed to addressing the concerns of libraries and the reading public under the assumption that the proposed settlement agreement will take effect, we were able only to scratch the surface of this topic in the two hours allotted. Structuring the class around a more focused topic (perhaps looking at only one or two particular concerns) would likely allow for a deeper and more substantial discussion. As the topic becomes more focused, however, it may be more difficult to ensure that all students are interested and feel competent to contribute to the discussion. A class specifically addressing antitrust concerns, for example, would likely have alienated many of the non-law students in the class.

*'''Readings Management''' - Future iterations of this class would do well to use the readings we assigned, as they are comprehensive, yet readable, and they are currently the pieces most mentioned by those discussing the settlement, and thus knowledge of them is important for being able to participate in the discussion. The one exception is the actual settlement provisions that we assigned. Careful thought should be put into assigning portions of the settlement agreement itself as reading. Any such settlement excerpts should be selected deliberately with an eye to how they will be used in class. Parsing the language of settlement terms might alienate any non-law students in a class, so the composition of student backgrounds should be taken into account in deciding whether to assign reading from the settlement agreement. Although having a glimpse of what the actual settlement looks like may be education, it can probably be done without. One further caution is that the settlement is part of a constantly changing landscape (see our [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#History_of_the_Settlement summary of the settlement's current status]), and thus future classes on the subject will need to make sure they are up to date on the status of the settlement--for instance, whether it has been modified, or accepted, or rejected. If a major change does occur, then substitute readings may be needed.

*'''Guest Management''' - Potential ideas of ways to help foster a lively class discussion that is neither dominated by the guests nor stuck on purely descriptive questions include the following:
**''Fewer guests.'' While each guest had a unique perspective on the settlement, more guests means less time for class discussion and student input, and this trade-off is especially problematic given the complexity of the settlement.
**''Pre-recorded material.'' In order to better control timing and ensure that only the most relevant and interesting guest statements are presented to the class, interviews with the guests and/or prepared statements by them could be recorded and edited. This edited final version would then be shown to the class instead of, or in conjunction with, live guests. Recorded interviews would also enable the presentation of guests who are not available on the day of the class session; for example, our class might have benefited from a recorded interview with [http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/darnton.php Robert Darnton], who was enthusiastic about participating in the discussion but was unable to join us in real time because of a schedule conflict.
**''Time limits on guests.'' Both to address timing issues and also to lead students away from descriptive questions and toward more normative discussion, the amount of time for which the guests are available could be limited. One possible arrangement would be to have the guests available for introductions and questions during the first hour, and then to have student discussion proceed during the second hour without the guests present.

*'''Technology Management''' - Technology might be used more effectively in the following ways:
**''Interest polling for planning purposes.'' The Berkman Question tool, or even an online poll, might have been used earlier in the planning process in order to determine which of the major issues the class found most interesting. This technique could have alleviated some of the problems mentioned under "topic management" above, by allowing for a more narrowly focused class while ensuring that at least a plurality of students would be interested in the discussion.
**''Videoconferencing details.'' Appropriate camera placement should be considered in advance, in order to avoid an awkward arrangement like the one we had. Videoconferencing also offers a convenient way of limiting the period of time during which the guests are available, whereas ushering out live guests would be more difficult.

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-04-29T22:01:03Z

Lbaker: /* Teachers' Guide */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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, [http://books.google.com/ 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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow up with the guests with questions we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]), with an emphasis on how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement, assuming it is approved by the court.

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)
* International Implications (with respect to both international authors publishing in the US being covered by the settlement and international access to Google Book Search)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc Selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR]).

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page)

== Optional Readings ==

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

*Browse the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

= Teacher's Guide =

== Evaluation of the Class ==
The Google Book Settlement is a large, diverse, and contentious topic. Even with our decision to assume the settlement would be approved and focus specifically on concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, two hours was insufficient to do more than scratch the surface. An even tighter focus for the class may have partially alleviated this difficulty, albeit at the cost of precluding discussion topics that students might have found more interesting. Such a tightening of focus would not have addressed the most significant factor contributing to the time constraint, however, which is the sheer complexity of the settlement itself. At over 140 pages plus appendices, there is a lot of material that must be digested before potential concerns may be formulated and discussed. Johnathan Band's summary does a good job of explaining the most relevant portions of the settlement, while the Grimmelmann article explains major concerns in the context of the settlement, but neither piece addresses all the relevant details. As a result, significant time was spent with Mr. Cunard answering specific questions regarding the terms of the settlement, before the class could proceed to a more open-ended discussion about concerns and potential solutions. Additionally, while each of our guests brought their own unique perspective to the settlement and were very insightful, we found that two hours is insufficient to appropriately accommodate three guests.

A substantial portion of the class discussion focused on the question of whether the pre-settlement status quo was the appropriate comparison against which the settlement should be judged. Although one alternative “dream scenario” was suggested as a potential foil to the settlement, it seems that more could have been done with this. A more lively discussion of alternatives to the settlement might have emerged had the guests only been present for the first hour of the class. This might have prevented monopolization of the conversation by the guests, allowing for more student input and a greater diversity of ideas and proposals. By removing the “settlement expert” after a specified period of time, the amount of time spent asking detailed descriptive questions about the settlement may have been reduced, allowing more time for an open-ended normative discussion of concerns with the settlement and potential alternatives. Of course, if fundamental questions regarding the mechanics of the settlement remained, restricting access to the guests would impair an informed discussion of prominent concerns and potential solutions. This would require those leading the discussion to have a fairly good grasp of the major points of the settlement, to act as a fall-back on descriptive matters once the guests have left.

== Use of Technology ==
This class was served well by the minimal use of technology. The Berkman Question Tool was useful in providing a means for classroom backchannel discussion while not being too distracting. It also provided “fall-back” questions to use if there was a lull in the discussion, with student voting signaling, presumably, which questions and topics they found most interesting.

The Berkman Question tool, or even an online poll, might have been used earlier in the planning process in order to determine which of the major issues the class found most interesting. This would have alleviated some of the problems mentioned in the "topic management" suggestion below, by allowing for a more narrowly focused class while ensuring that at least a plurality of students would be interested in the topic.

Videoconferencing was an effective way of communicating with a remote speaker. Appropriate camera placement should be considered in advance, in order that the remote guest is not given a shot of students' backs throughout the entire class. Videoconferencing also offers a convenient way of limiting the period of time for which the guests are available, which is less easily done with live guests.

== Suggestions for Future Iterations ==

*'''Guest management''' - in order to help foster a lively class discussion that is neither dominated by the guests nor stuck on purely descriptive questions; potential ideas include:
**Less guests - while each guest had a unique perspective on the settlement, more guests means less time for class discussion and student input, especially given the complexity of the settlement.
**Pre-recorded material - in order to better control timing and ensure that only the most relevant and interesting bits are presented to the class, interviews with the guests and/or prepared statements by them could be created and edited. This edited final version could then be shown to the class instead of, or in conjunction with, live guests.
**Time limit on guests - to address both timing issues and force students away from descriptive questions and toward more normative discussion, the amount of time for which the guests are available could be limited. Perhaps have the guests available for introductions and descriptive questions during the first hour, and then have student discussion during the second hour.

*'''Topic management''' - even though our topic narrowly addressed concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, and tried to determine how we might address those concerns going forward, we were only able to scratch the surface in the two hours allotted. Having a more focused topic (perhaps looking at only one or two particular concerns) would likely allow a deeper and more substantial discussion. As the topic becomes more focused, however, it may be more difficult to design it so that all students are interested and feel competent to contribute to the discussion. A class specifically addressing anti-trust concerns, for example, would likely have alienated many of the non-law students in the class.

== Class Content ==

''How can we make this section relate back to the purpose of being a "teacher's guide" instead of merely being a recap of our class?'' [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

=== Introductory Remarks ===
Despite concerns and settlement amendment proposals raised in the blogosphere, it is important to remember that this settlement is the (presumptive) result of an actual litigation between specific parties. Although the parties have taken care to incorporate other interests into the negotiation process, at its core the settlement is designed to satisfy the concerns of publishers and authors that led them to sue Google in the first place. Nonetheless, major libraries had a presence during the negotiations, participating both directly and through Google. The public interest was also taken into account in a variety of ways, culminating in the substantial access provisions for the visually impaired and the provision of public access terminals to all libraries. It should also not be forgotten that copyright holders, as members of the public themselves, had an interest in ensuring that the public interest was not ignored during the negotiations. In any case, all three guests agreed that the settlement reflects a substantial improvement over the status quo for all.

From the publishers’ perspective, the litigation was essentially concerned with ensuring that copyright remained a permissions-based regime. When Google decided to start digitizing books on a massive scale, it did so without attempting to secure permission from rightsholders, challenging this regime. Publishers were also concerned about potential repercussions of Google’s practice of providing libraries with digital copies of the books it had digitized from their collection. Library users have special exemptions under the Copyright Act to copy books in a library’s collection, exemptions carved out during an era where photocopying a book, page by page, was the only means of producing such a copy. In today’s digital era, however, this exemption for library patrons coupled with mass digitization could lead to widespread copying of books in library collections without any revenue going to the rightsholder. It was these types of concerns that motivated publishers and authors to bring suit against Google. Although the settlement would result in a net increase in public access to information, there are causes for concern. While the provision of a free public access terminal to every library represents a boon to small-town local libraries, it may instead act as a strain on a larger library such as those in the New York Public Library system. The digital book database that Google is amassing would be an invaluable corpus on which to perform various types of research. Research libraries are rightfully concerned about restrictions on the use of this information. Potential problems also arise due to this corpus being concentrated in the hands of a single, or small handful of, powerful private actor(s). These concerns about concentration of power over information are heightened since the settlement effectively precludes a potential competitor from offering any comparable service in the near future. Finally, there is the argument of institutional competence: are broad legal issues that so fundamentally affect the public interest best decided through private litigation? What effect will the settlement have on copyright doctrine more broadly? How will the fate of orphan works change after the settlement is enacted? More fundamentally, is it wise to establish such a rigid, comprehensive system for the digital book realm before we have a better idea, as a society, of how we want to structure our digital world?

Professor Palfrey suggests three improvements to the settlement that would begin to address many of these concerns:
*Ensure the possibility of a meaningful competitive landscape, such that second-comers are not barred from success
*Establish a means by which the public can have a meaningful level of control over the workings of the Book Rights Registry
*Create a system of periodic review for the settlement. This does not need to involve periodic wholesale review of the entire settlement by the courts, but could merely involve libraries negotiating sunset provisions for individual works with publishers, authors, and other rightsholders

=== Live Discussion ===

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-04-29T21:09:00Z

Lbaker: /* Teaching Tools */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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, [http://books.google.com/ 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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow up with the guests with questions we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]), with an emphasis on how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement, assuming it is approved by the court.

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)
* International Implications (with respect to both international authors publishing in the US being covered by the settlement and international access to Google Book Search)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc Selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR]).

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page)

== Optional Readings ==

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

*Browse the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

= Teachers' Guide =

== Achievement of Class Objectives ==
The Google Book Settlement is a large, diverse, and contentious topic. Even with our decision to assume the settlement would be approved and focus specifically on concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, two hours was insufficient to do more than scratch the surface. An even tighter focus for the class may have partially alleviated this difficulty, albeit at the cost of precluding discussion topics that students might have found more interesting. Such a tightening of focus would not have addressed the most significant factor contributing to the time constraint, which is the sheer complexity of the settlement itself. At over 140 pages plus appendices, there is a lot of material that must be digested before potential concerns may be formulated and discussed. Johnathan Band's summary does a good job of explaining the most relevant portions of the settlement, while the Grimmelmann article explains major concerns in the context of the settlement, but neither piece addresses all the relevant details. As a result, significant time was spent with Mr. Cunard answering specific questions regarding the terms of the settlement, before the class could proceed to a more open-ended discussion about concerns and potential solutions. Additionally, while each of our guests brought their own unique perspective to the settlement and were very insightful, we found that two hours is insufficient to appropriately accommodate three guests.

A substantial portion of the class discussion focused on the question of whether the pre-settlement status quo was the appropriate comparison against which the settlement should be judged. Although one alternative “dream scenario” was suggested as a potential foil to the settlement, it seems that more could have been done with this. A more lively discussion of alternatives to the settlement might have emerged had the guests only been present for the first hour of the class. This might have prevented monopolization of the conversation by the guests, allowing for more student input and a greater diversity of ideas and proposals. By removing the “settlement expert” after a specified period of time, the amount of time spent asking detailed descriptive questions about the settlement may have been reduced, allowing more time for a more open-ended normative discussion of concerns with the settlement and potential alternatives. Of course, if fundamental questions regarding the mechanics of the settlement remained, restricting access to the guests would impair an informed discussion of prominent concerns and potential solutions.

This class was served well by the minimal use of technology. The Berkman Question Tool was useful in providing a means for classroom backchannel discussion while not being too distracting. It also provided “fall-back” questions to use if there was a lull in the discussion. Given that some of the pre-seeded questions were voted up, it could have served as a means to steer the discussion to topic areas the class deemed most interesting, again if there was a lull in the discussion.

== Teaching Materials ==

=== Introductory Remarks ===
Despite concerns and settlement amendment proposals raised in the blogosphere, it is important to remember that this settlement is the (presumptive) result of an actual litigation between specific parties. Although the parties have taken care to incorporate other interests into the negotiation process, at its core the settlement is designed to satisfy the concerns of publishers and authors that led them to sue Google in the first place. Nonetheless, major libraries had a presence during the negotiations, participating both directly and through Google. The public interest was also taken into account in a variety of ways, culminating in the substantial access provisions for the visually impaired and the provision of public access terminals to all libraries. It should also not be forgotten that copyright holders, as members of the public themselves, had an interest in ensuring that the public interest was not ignored during the negotiations. In any case, all three guests agreed that the settlement reflects a substantial improvement over the status quo for all.

From the publishers’ perspective, the litigation was essentially concerned with ensuring that copyright remained a permissions-based regime. When Google decided to start digitizing books on a massive scale, it did so without attempting to secure permission from rightsholders, challenging this regime. Publishers were also concerned about potential repercussions of Google’s practice of providing libraries with digital copies of the books it had digitized from their collection. Library users have special exemptions under the Copyright Act to copy books in a library’s collection, exemptions carved out during an era where photocopying a book, page by page, was the only means of producing such a copy. In today’s digital era, however, this exemption for library patrons coupled with mass digitization could lead to widespread copying of books in library collections without any revenue going to the rightsholder. It was these types of concerns that motivated publishers and authors to bring suit against Google.

Although the settlement would result in a net increase in public access to information, there are causes for concern. While the provision of a free public access terminal to every library represents a boon to small-town local libraries, it may instead act as a strain on a larger library such as those in the New York Public Library system. The digital book database that Google is amassing would be an invaluable corpus on which to perform various types of research. Research libraries are rightfully concerned about restrictions on the use of this information. Potential problems also arise due to this corpus being concentrated in the hands of a single, or small handful of, powerful private actor(s). These concerns about concentration of power over information are heightened since the settlement effectively precludes a potential competitor from offering any comparable service in the near future. Finally, there is the argument of institutional competence: are broad legal issues that so fundamentally affect the public interest best decided through private litigation? What effect will the settlement have on copyright doctrine more broadly? How will the fate of orphan works change after the settlement is enacted? More fundamentally, is it wise to establish such a rigid, comprehensive system for the digital book realm before we have a better idea, as a society, of how we want to structure our digital world?

Professor Palfrey suggests three improvements to the settlement that would begin to address many of these concerns:
*Ensure the possibility of a meaningful competitive landscape, such that second-comers are not barred from success
*Establish a means by which the public can have a meaningful level of control over the workings of the Book Rights Registry
*Create a system of periodic review for the settlement. This does not need to involve periodic wholesale review of the entire settlement by the courts, but could merely involve libraries negotiating sunset provisions for individual works with publishers, authors, and other rightsholders

=== Prepared Questions ===

== Class Content ==
=== Live Discussion ===

=== Berkman Question Tool ===
=== Twitter? ===

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-04-05T18:58:21Z

Lbaker: /* Teaching Tools */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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, [http://books.google.com/ 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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow up with the guests with questions we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]), with an emphasis on how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement, assuming it is approved by the court.

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)
* International Implications (with respect to both international authors publishing in the US being covered by the settlement and international access to Google Book Search)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc Selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR]).

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page)

== Optional Readings ==

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

*Browse the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

= Teaching Tools =

== Achievement of Class Objectives ==
The Google Book Settlement is a large, diverse, and contentious topic. Even with our decision to assume the settlement would be approved and focus specifically on concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, two hours was insufficient to do more than scratch the surface. An even tighter focus for the class may have partially alleviated this difficulty, albeit at the cost of precluding discussion topics that students might have found more interesting. Such a tightening of focus would not have addressed the most significant factor contributing to the time constraint, which is the sheer complexity of the settlement itself. At over 140 pages plus appendices, there is a lot of material that must be digested before potential concerns may be formulated and discussed. Johnathan Band's summary does a good job of explaining the most relevant portions of the settlement, while the Grimmelmann article explains major concerns in the context of the settlement, but neither piece addresses all the relevant details. As a result, significant time was spent with Mr. Cunard answering specific questions regarding the terms of the settlement, before the class could proceed to a more open-ended discussion about concerns and potential solutions. Additionally, while each of our guests brought their own unique perspective to the settlement and were very insightful, we found that two hours is insufficient to appropriately accommodate three guests.

A substantial portion of the class discussion focused on the question of whether the pre-settlement status quo was the appropriate comparison against which the settlement should be judged. Although one alternative “dream scenario” was suggested as a potential foil to the settlement, it seems that more could have been done with this. A more lively discussion of alternatives to the settlement might have emerged had the guests only been present for the first hour of the class. This might have prevented monopolization of the conversation by the guests, allowing for more student input and a greater diversity of ideas and proposals. By removing the “settlement expert” after a specified period of time, the amount of time spent asking detailed descriptive questions about the settlement may have been reduced, allowing more time for a more open-ended normative discussion of concerns with the settlement and potential alternatives. Of course, if fundamental questions regarding the mechanics of the settlement remained, restricting access to the guests would impair an informed discussion of prominent concerns and potential solutions.

This class was served well by the minimal use of technology. The Berkman Question Tool was useful in providing a means for classroom backchannel discussion while not being too distracting. It also provided “fall-back” questions to use if there was a lull in the discussion. Given that some of the pre-seeded questions were voted up, it could have served as a means to steer the discussion to topic areas the class deemed most interesting, again if there was a lull in the discussion.

== Teaching Materials ==

=== Introductory Remarks ===
Despite concerns and settlement amendment proposals raised in the blogosphere, it is important to remember that this settlement is the (presumptive) result of an actual litigation between specific parties. Although the parties have taken care to incorporate other interests into the negotiation process, at its core the settlement is designed to satisfy the concerns of publishers and authors that led them to sue Google in the first place. Nonetheless, major libraries had a presence during the negotiations, participating both directly and through Google. The public interest was also taken into account in a variety of ways, culminating in the substantial access provisions for the visually impaired and the provision of public access terminals to all libraries. It should also not be forgotten that copyright holders, as members of the public themselves, had an interest in ensuring that the public interest was not ignored during the negotiations. In any case, all three guests agreed that the settlement reflects a substantial improvement over the status quo for all.

From the publishers’ perspective, the litigation was essentially concerned with ensuring that copyright remained a permissions-based regime. When Google decided to start digitizing books on a massive scale, it did so without attempting to secure permission from rightsholders, challenging this regime. Publishers were also concerned about potential repercussions of Google’s practice of providing libraries with digital copies of the books it had digitized from their collection. Library users have special exemptions under the Copyright Act to copy books in a library’s collection, exemptions carved out during an era where photocopying a book, page by page, was the only means of producing such a copy. In today’s digital era, however, this exemption for library patrons coupled with mass digitization could lead to widespread copying of books in library collections without any revenue going to the rightsholder. It was these types of concerns that motivated publishers and authors to bring suit against Google.

Although the settlement would result in a net increase in public access to information, there are causes for concern. While the provision of a free public access terminal to every library represents a boon to small-town local libraries, it may instead act as a strain on a larger library such as those in the New York Public Library system. The digital book database that Google is amassing would be an invaluable corpus on which to perform various types of research. Research libraries are rightfully concerned about restrictions on the use of this information. Potential problems also arise due to this corpus being concentrated in the hands of a single, or small handful of, powerful private actor(s). These concerns about concentration of power over information are heightened since the settlement effectively precludes a potential competitor from offering any comparable service in the near future. Finally, there is the argument of institutional competence: are broad legal issues that so fundamentally affect the public interest best decided through private litigation? What effect will the settlement have on copyright doctrine more broadly? How will the fate of orphan works change after the settlement is enacted? More fundamentally, is it wise to establish such a rigid, comprehensive system for the digital book realm before we have a better idea, as a society, of how we want to structure our digital world?

Professor Palfrey suggests three improvements to the settlement that would begin to address many of these concerns:
*Ensure the possibility of a meaningful competitive landscape, such that second-comers are not barred from success
*Establish a means by which the public can have a meaningful level of control over the workings of the Book Rights Registry
*Create a system of periodic review for the settlement. This does not need to involve periodic wholesale review of the entire settlement by the courts, but could merely involve libraries negotiating sunset provisions for individual works with publishers, authors, and other rightsholders

=== Prepared Questions ===

== Class Content ==
=== Live Discussion ===

=== Berkman Question Tool ===
=== Twitter? ===

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-04-05T18:58:05Z

Lbaker: /* Introductory Remarks */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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, [http://books.google.com/ 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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow up with the guests with questions we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]), with an emphasis on how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement, assuming it is approved by the court.

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)
* International Implications (with respect to both international authors publishing in the US being covered by the settlement and international access to Google Book Search)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc Selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR]).

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page)

== Optional Readings ==

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

*Browse the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

= Teaching Tools =
[This is what I have so far from our list of "what worked and what didn't" and notes from the speakers' introductory remarks. It is unpolished, and I'll go through it again tomorrow and edit it, and also potentially add more [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 23:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)]

== Achievement of Class Objectives ==
The Google Book Settlement is a large, diverse, and contentious topic. Even with our decision to assume the settlement would be approved and focus specifically on concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, two hours was insufficient to do more than scratch the surface. An even tighter focus for the class may have partially alleviated this difficulty, albeit at the cost of precluding discussion topics that students might have found more interesting. Such a tightening of focus would not have addressed the most significant factor contributing to the time constraint, which is the sheer complexity of the settlement itself. At over 140 pages plus appendices, there is a lot of material that must be digested before potential concerns may be formulated and discussed. Johnathan Band's summary does a good job of explaining the most relevant portions of the settlement, while the Grimmelmann article explains major concerns in the context of the settlement, but neither piece addresses all the relevant details. As a result, significant time was spent with Mr. Cunard answering specific questions regarding the terms of the settlement, before the class could proceed to a more open-ended discussion about concerns and potential solutions. Additionally, while each of our guests brought their own unique perspective to the settlement and were very insightful, we found that two hours is insufficient to appropriately accommodate three guests.

A substantial portion of the class discussion focused on the question of whether the pre-settlement status quo was the appropriate comparison against which the settlement should be judged. Although one alternative “dream scenario” was suggested as a potential foil to the settlement, it seems that more could have been done with this. A more lively discussion of alternatives to the settlement might have emerged had the guests only been present for the first hour of the class. This might have prevented monopolization of the conversation by the guests, allowing for more student input and a greater diversity of ideas and proposals. By removing the “settlement expert” after a specified period of time, the amount of time spent asking detailed descriptive questions about the settlement may have been reduced, allowing more time for a more open-ended normative discussion of concerns with the settlement and potential alternatives. Of course, if fundamental questions regarding the mechanics of the settlement remained, restricting access to the guests would impair an informed discussion of prominent concerns and potential solutions.

This class was served well by the minimal use of technology. The Berkman Question Tool was useful in providing a means for classroom backchannel discussion while not being too distracting. It also provided “fall-back” questions to use if there was a lull in the discussion. Given that some of the pre-seeded questions were voted up, it could have served as a means to steer the discussion to topic areas the class deemed most interesting, again if there was a lull in the discussion.

== Teaching Materials ==

=== Introductory Remarks ===
Despite concerns and settlement amendment proposals raised in the blogosphere, it is important to remember that this settlement is the (presumptive) result of an actual litigation between specific parties. Although the parties have taken care to incorporate other interests into the negotiation process, at its core the settlement is designed to satisfy the concerns of publishers and authors that led them to sue Google in the first place. Nonetheless, major libraries had a presence during the negotiations, participating both directly and through Google. The public interest was also taken into account in a variety of ways, culminating in the substantial access provisions for the visually impaired and the provision of public access terminals to all libraries. It should also not be forgotten that copyright holders, as members of the public themselves, had an interest in ensuring that the public interest was not ignored during the negotiations. In any case, all three guests agreed that the settlement reflects a substantial improvement over the status quo for all.

From the publishers’ perspective, the litigation was essentially concerned with ensuring that copyright remained a permissions-based regime. When Google decided to start digitizing books on a massive scale, it did so without attempting to secure permission from rightsholders, challenging this regime. Publishers were also concerned about potential repercussions of Google’s practice of providing libraries with digital copies of the books it had digitized from their collection. Library users have special exemptions under the Copyright Act to copy books in a library’s collection, exemptions carved out during an era where photocopying a book, page by page, was the only means of producing such a copy. In today’s digital era, however, this exemption for library patrons coupled with mass digitization could lead to widespread copying of books in library collections without any revenue going to the rightsholder. It was these types of concerns that motivated publishers and authors to bring suit against Google.

Although the settlement would result in a net increase in public access to information, there are causes for concern. While the provision of a free public access terminal to every library represents a boon to small-town local libraries, it may instead act as a strain on a larger library such as those in the New York Public Library system. The digital book database that Google is amassing would be an invaluable corpus on which to perform various types of research. Research libraries are rightfully concerned about restrictions on the use of this information. Potential problems also arise due to this corpus being concentrated in the hands of a single, or small handful of, powerful private actor(s). These concerns about concentration of power over information are heightened since the settlement effectively precludes a potential competitor from offering any comparable service in the near future. Finally, there is the argument of institutional competence: are broad legal issues that so fundamentally affect the public interest best decided through private litigation? What effect will the settlement have on copyright doctrine more broadly? How will the fate of orphan works change after the settlement is enacted? More fundamentally, is it wise to establish such a rigid, comprehensive system for the digital book realm before we have a better idea, as a society, of how we want to structure our digital world?

Professor Palfrey suggests three improvements to the settlement that would begin to address many of these concerns:
*Ensure the possibility of a meaningful competitive landscape, such that second-comers are not barred from success
*Establish a means by which the public can have a meaningful level of control over the workings of the Book Rights Registry
*Create a system of periodic review for the settlement. This does not need to involve periodic wholesale review of the entire settlement by the courts, but could merely involve libraries negotiating sunset provisions for individual works with publishers, authors, and other rightsholders

=== Prepared Questions ===

== Class Content ==
=== Live Discussion ===

=== Berkman Question Tool ===
=== Twitter? ===

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-04-05T18:20:20Z

Lbaker: /* Achievement of Class Objectives */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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, [http://books.google.com/ 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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow up with the guests with questions we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]), with an emphasis on how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement, assuming it is approved by the court.

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)
* International Implications (with respect to both international authors publishing in the US being covered by the settlement and international access to Google Book Search)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc Selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR]).

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page)

== Optional Readings ==

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

*Browse the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

= Teaching Tools =
[This is what I have so far from our list of "what worked and what didn't" and notes from the speakers' introductory remarks. It is unpolished, and I'll go through it again tomorrow and edit it, and also potentially add more [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 23:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)]

== Achievement of Class Objectives ==
The Google Book Settlement is a large, diverse, and contentious topic. Even with our decision to assume the settlement would be approved and focus specifically on concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, two hours was insufficient to do more than scratch the surface. An even tighter focus for the class may have partially alleviated this difficulty, albeit at the cost of precluding discussion topics that students might have found more interesting. Such a tightening of focus would not have addressed the most significant factor contributing to the time constraint, which is the sheer complexity of the settlement itself. At over 140 pages plus appendices, there is a lot of material that must be digested before potential concerns may be formulated and discussed. Johnathan Band's summary does a good job of explaining the most relevant portions of the settlement, while the Grimmelmann article explains major concerns in the context of the settlement, but neither piece addresses all the relevant details. As a result, significant time was spent with Mr. Cunard answering specific questions regarding the terms of the settlement, before the class could proceed to a more open-ended discussion about concerns and potential solutions. Additionally, while each of our guests brought their own unique perspective to the settlement and were very insightful, we found that two hours is insufficient to appropriately accommodate three guests.

A substantial portion of the class discussion focused on the question of whether the pre-settlement status quo was the appropriate comparison against which the settlement should be judged. Although one alternative “dream scenario” was suggested as a potential foil to the settlement, it seems that more could have been done with this. A more lively discussion of alternatives to the settlement might have emerged had the guests only been present for the first hour of the class. This might have prevented monopolization of the conversation by the guests, allowing for more student input and a greater diversity of ideas and proposals. By removing the “settlement expert” after a specified period of time, the amount of time spent asking detailed descriptive questions about the settlement may have been reduced, allowing more time for a more open-ended normative discussion of concerns with the settlement and potential alternatives. Of course, if fundamental questions regarding the mechanics of the settlement remained, restricting access to the guests would impair an informed discussion of prominent concerns and potential solutions.

This class was served well by the minimal use of technology. The Berkman Question Tool was useful in providing a means for classroom backchannel discussion while not being too distracting. It also provided “fall-back” questions to use if there was a lull in the discussion. Given that some of the pre-seeded questions were voted up, it could have served as a means to steer the discussion to topic areas the class deemed most interesting, again if there was a lull in the discussion.

== Teaching Materials ==

=== Introductory Remarks ===
Despite all the concerns raised in the blogosphere and the proposals to amend the settlement, it is important to remember that this settlement is the (presumptive) result of an actual litigation between specific parties. The parties involved have negotiated with their own interests in mind, but have also taken great care to incorporate other interests into the proposed settlement. Major libraries participated in the negotiations both directly and through Google. The public interest was taken into account in a variety of ways, including the substantial provisions for access for the visually disabled, and the provision of the public access terminals to all libraries. It should also not be forgotten that copyright holders are members of the public themselves, and thus they also had an interest in ensuring the negotiations did not ignore the public interest. Furthermore, providing the public with 20% of the full text of most in-copyright but out-of-print books is much better for everyone than merely providing snippets.

In a sense, the litigation was about ensuring that the rights given to copyright holders were maintained. The Copyright Act sets up a permission-based system, with those wishing to make use of copyrighted works finding the rightsholder and negotiating for that permission. Google sought to make digital copies of books without seeking the requisite permission. Publishers were also wary about the repercussions of Google providing the digital copies it had made back to libraries without any constraints. Library users have special exemptions under the Copyright Act to copy books in the library’s collection. This exemption was carved out during an era where the library’s photocopier was the only means of producing such a copy. In today’s digital era, however, this exception for library patrons coupled with mass digitization could lead to widespread copying of library-held books without any revenue for either publishers or authors. Concerns such as these are what prompted the litigation.

From the perspective of an academic interested in libraries, there are causes for concern, even though the settlement represents an improvement over the status quo and would result in a net increase in public access to information. The provision of a free public access terminal to every library is a huge boon to small-town local libraries, but does not provide the same benefits to large libraries such as some in the New York Public Libraries system. In the latter case, the terminal may even become a hindrance rather than a help. For research libraries, there are concerns over restrictions on what users may be able to do with the information in the format in which it is provided. The digital book database produced by Google would be an invaluable corpus on which to perform various types of research. Academic libraries are rightfully concerned about power over this corpus being concentrated in the hands of a single, or small handful of, powerful private actor(s). There are concerns that this settlement effectively precludes any comparable service from being provided in the near future by a potential competitor. There is also a general criticism of deciding broadly applicable legal issues with public repercussions through private litigation. What effect will the settlement have on copyright doctrine more broadly? How will the fate of orphan works change after the settlement is enacted? More fundamentally, is it wise to create such a far-reaching system before we have even worked out, as a society, how we want the digital world to look? Many of these concerns can be addressed through three improvements to the settlement:
*Ensure the possibility of a meaningful competitive landscape, such that second-comers are not preclusively barred from success
*Construct some meaningful way for the public to have a meaningful level of control over the workings of the Book Rights Registry
*Create a system of periodic review for the settlement. This does not need to involve wholesale review of the entire settlement by the courts, but could merely involve libraries negotiating sunset provisions for individual works with publishers, authors, and other rightsholders.

=== Prepared Questions ===

== Class Content ==
=== Live Discussion ===

=== Berkman Question Tool ===
=== Twitter? ===

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-04-04T23:31:22Z

Lbaker: /* Teaching Tools */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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, [http://books.google.com/ 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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow up with the guests with questions we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]), with an emphasis on how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement, assuming it is approved by the court.

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)
* International Implications (with respect to both international authors publishing in the US being covered by the settlement and international access to Google Book Search)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc Selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR]).

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page)

== Optional Readings ==

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

*Browse the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

= Teaching Tools =
[This is what I have so far from our list of "what worked and what didn't" and notes from the speakers' introductory remarks. It is unpolished, and I'll go through it again tomorrow and edit it, and also potentially add more [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 23:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)]

== Achievement of Class Objectives ==
The Google Book Settlement is a large, diverse, and contentious topic. Even with our decision to assume the settlement would pass in essentially its current form and the focus on concerns raised by libraries and the reading public, there was still too much material to cover in a mere two hours. One component of this difficulty is the sheer complexity of the settlement itself - at over 140 pages plus appendices, there is a lot of material that one must digest in order to evaluate potential concerns and discuss methods of alleviating them. Johnathan Band's summary does a good job of explaining the most relevant portions of the settlement, while the Grimmelmann piece explains major concerns in the context of the settlement, but neither address all details. As a result, significant time must be allotted to answering specific questions regarding the terms of the settlement before more open-ended discussion on concerns and solutions can proceed. While each of our guests brought their own unique perspective to the settlement and had very insightful things to say, three guests are likely too many to incorporate into a two-hour discussion.

Once the floor was opened for discussion, there was significant push-back on the idea that the correct metric for comparison in determining whether the settlement was a good thing was the status quo prior to the settlement. Although one view of an alternate “dream scenario” was aired, it seemed that more could have been done on this front. One suggestion that may have both helped to reduce the time spent on a descriptive discussion of the settlement and created a more lively discussion of alternatives (and how to reach a collectively agreed-upon “dream scenario”) would have been to restrict the amount of time in which our guests were available. This may have prevented monopolization of the conversation by the guests, allowing for more student input, and also create a more collegiate and unrestricted discussion. Input from a wider variety of students from different backgrounds might have allowed for some creative suggestions that may not necessarily occur to lawyers and legal academics with expertise in the field of copyright. The downside, of course, would be that there would no longer be an expert on the settlement present to answer any detailed questions of the settlement as it stands.

The minimal use of technology seemed to work well. Students discussed the questions pre-seeded on the Berkman Question Tool and proposed questions of their own, one of which was used to promote discussion.

== Teaching Materials ==

=== Introductory Remarks ===
Despite all the concerns raised in the blogosphere and the proposals to amend the settlement, it is important to remember that this settlement is the (presumptive) result of an actual litigation between specific parties. The parties involved have negotiated with their own interests in mind, but have also taken great care to incorporate other interests into the proposed settlement. Major libraries participated in the negotiations both directly and through Google. The public interest was taken into account in a variety of ways, including the substantial provisions for access for the visually disabled, and the provision of the public access terminals to all libraries. It should also not be forgotten that copyright holders are members of the public themselves, and thus they also had an interest in ensuring the negotiations did not ignore the public interest. Furthermore, providing the public with 20% of the full text of most in-copyright but out-of-print books is much better for everyone than merely providing snippets.

In a sense, the litigation was about ensuring that the rights given to copyright holders were maintained. The Copyright Act sets up a permission-based system, with those wishing to make use of copyrighted works finding the rightsholder and negotiating for that permission. Google sought to make digital copies of books without seeking the requisite permission. Publishers were also wary about the repercussions of Google providing the digital copies it had made back to libraries without any constraints. Library users have special exemptions under the Copyright Act to copy books in the library’s collection. This exemption was carved out during an era where the library’s photocopier was the only means of producing such a copy. In today’s digital era, however, this exception for library patrons coupled with mass digitization could lead to widespread copying of library-held books without any revenue for either publishers or authors. Concerns such as these are what prompted the litigation.

From the perspective of an academic interested in libraries, there are causes for concern, even though the settlement represents an improvement over the status quo and would result in a net increase in public access to information. The provision of a free public access terminal to every library is a huge boon to small-town local libraries, but does not provide the same benefits to large libraries such as some in the New York Public Libraries system. In the latter case, the terminal may even become a hindrance rather than a help. For research libraries, there are concerns over restrictions on what users may be able to do with the information in the format in which it is provided. The digital book database produced by Google would be an invaluable corpus on which to perform various types of research. Academic libraries are rightfully concerned about power over this corpus being concentrated in the hands of a single, or small handful of, powerful private actor(s). There are concerns that this settlement effectively precludes any comparable service from being provided in the near future by a potential competitor. There is also a general criticism of deciding broadly applicable legal issues with public repercussions through private litigation. What effect will the settlement have on copyright doctrine more broadly? How will the fate of orphan works change after the settlement is enacted? More fundamentally, is it wise to create such a far-reaching system before we have even worked out, as a society, how we want the digital world to look? Many of these concerns can be addressed through three improvements to the settlement:
*Ensure the possibility of a meaningful competitive landscape, such that second-comers are not preclusively barred from success
*Construct some meaningful way for the public to have a meaningful level of control over the workings of the Book Rights Registry
*Create a system of periodic review for the settlement. This does not need to involve wholesale review of the entire settlement by the courts, but could merely involve libraries negotiating sunset provisions for individual works with publishers, authors, and other rightsholders.

=== Prepared Questions ===

== Class Content ==
=== Live Discussion ===

=== Berkman Question Tool ===
=== Twitter? ===

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-04-01T20:05:32Z

Lbaker:

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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, [http://books.google.com/ 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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow up with the guests with questions we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]), with an emphasis on how institutions and readers should respond to the settlement, assuming it is approved by the court.

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)
* International Implications (with respect to both international authors publishing in the US being covered by the settlement and international access to Google Book Search)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc Selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR]).

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom of the page)

== Optional Readings ==

*Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

*Browse the current incarnation of [http://books.google.com/ Google Book Search.]

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

= Teaching Tools =
== Class Objectives ==
== Teaching Materials ==
=== Introductory Remarks ===
=== Prepared Questions ===
== Class Content ==
=== Live Discussion ===
=== Berkman Question Tool ===

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-28T22:07:14Z

Lbaker: /* Class Participation */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''Topic Date:''' March 30

back to [[syllabus]]

= THIS CLASS WILL TAKE PLACE IN AUSTIN EAST =

= 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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement, the status of orphan works, and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (e.g. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works; international implications)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc Selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darnton's response at the bottom)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-26T13:41:02Z

Lbaker:

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''Topic Date:''' March 30

back to [[syllabus]]

= =
= THIS CLASS WILL TAKE PLACE IN AUSTIN EAST =

= 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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/sites/iif/images/Settlement_Selections.doc Selected provisions] from the settlement agreement.

* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]

* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.

* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darton's response at the bottom)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-22T15:20:46Z

Lbaker: /* Class Outline */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both the BRR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darton's response at the bottom)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-22T15:20:17Z

Lbaker: /* Implications of the Settlement */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 and develop means of working within the bounds of the settlement to mitigate these concerns.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darton's response at the bottom)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-22T15:18:47Z

Lbaker: /* Content of the Settlement */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.). Rightsholders can also choose to change the amount of their book that users may view from these default settings. 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darton's response at the bottom)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-22T15:16:13Z

Lbaker: /* History of the Settlement */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement.

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above, and just read Darton's response at the bottom)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*For the highly ambitious, [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

*[http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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.

*[http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13174399 This Economist piece] about Brewster Kahle and his Internet Archive as an alternative or supplement to Google Book Search.

== Further Research ==

*The full settlement, including all of its attachments, is available [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement here].

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

Prediction Markets

2009-03-19T23:49:51Z

Lbaker:

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]''', '''[[User:EST|Elisabeth]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

'''Precis'''

The most high-profile examples of prediction marketsthe Iowa Electronic Markets and Intradestarted by focusing primarily on predicting election outcomes and related political and financial events. Now they have expanded to cultural (Oscars) and technological (X Prize) events as well. The status of the commercial prediction markets is uncertain; for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeSports Tradesports] announced recently that it [http://www.tradesports.com/ is closing]. And questions remain about the [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1134563_code183716.pdf?abstractid=1134563&mirid=1 legal status] of prediction markets, whether the CTFC will [http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/proposedrules/2008/e8-9981.html regulate] them, and whether they will be [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6716/is_4_27/ai_n29450615/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 taxed].

Rather than focusing on the traditional markets, however, we want to focus on future applications of prediction markets, particularly their possible use by government or by government-industry collaboration. We'd like to explore in particular applications that are likely to be controversial.

The focus will be three cases that we think raise interesting legal and ethical questions.

* Crime rate predictions, a la [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 this proposal]

* Google's flu-tracking application (where, as Professor Zittrain noted, the predictors aren't even aware that their knowledge is being harvested)

* the failed DARPA [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market/index.html terrorist futures] market

'''Guests'''

Justin Wolfers, Economist (confirmed)

Hal Varian, Google (possibly, on videoconference)

'''Concrete Questions'''

* Which of these applications are most likely and desirable?

* Should the government be involved in administering prediction markets at all? Should it regulate them?

* What ethical concerns do we have about prediction markets of the future, and how might we address them? Can design of the markets help mitigate concerns? Are some more fundamental?

'''Tech Tweak/Experiment'''

Everyone will create their own prediction market contract via intrade.net. Once you set up an account there, you can then create you own contract at http://www.intrade.net/market/create/start.faces. Your contract can be about anything you like (doesn't have to be legal), but it should conclude before our class date, April 27, 2009. The idea is (1) for everyone to get a feel for how prediction markets operate; (2) to see what kinds of contracts get enough volume to be successful and what kinds don't; (3) to see how accurate the predictions are, how they change over time, etc.

Once you've signed up and created a contract -- please do so by Friday, March 20 -- you can invite other people in the class to bet on your contract to give it some initial starting volume. (Intrade.net gives everyone $10k in play money upon signing up, so obviously if people want to bet on the wider world's contracts, that's great too). Everyone should list the contracts they've created below to facilitate class participation on intrade (and so that we can generate a variety of different kinds of contracts). At the actual class session on April 27, everyone should come in prepared to briefly discuss what happened with their contract (feel free to create more than one).

'''Readings'''

* Background
** A [http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/Predictionmarkets.pdf brief general overview] of prediction markets, Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, <i>Prediction Markets</i>, 18 Journal of Economic Perspectives 107 (2004).
** Chapter 10 of Michael Abramowicz's book [http://www.amazon.com/Predictocracy-Market-Mechanisms-Private-Decision/dp/0300115997 Predictocracy]

* Google Flu Tracking Program
** The New York Times's [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/technology/internet/12flu.html writeup]

* Crime
**Professors Wolfers, Henderson, Zitzewitz's paper proposing the application of prediction markets to [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 crime]

* DARPA
**Senator Daschle's criticisms of the DARPA terrorism futures markets, http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/s072903.html, and Senator Dorgan's, http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/s072803.html
**A brief paper describing the failed DARPA terrorism futures market, by a Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/sept03/terrorism.pdf Robert Looney, <i>DARPA’s Policy Analysis Market for Intelligence: Outside the Box or Off the Wall?</i>, STRATEGIC INSIGHTS (2003).]
**A few newspaper [http://www.mongabay.com/external/pentagon_terror_futures.htm articles] describing the uproar over the DARPA program and its quick cancellation

'''Optional Readings'''

* Professor Sunstein's Infotopia

* Robin Hanson's [http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf Futarchy] proposal

* Cass R. Sunstein, Group Judgments: Statistical Means, Deliberation, and Information Markets, 80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 962 (2005)

* Paper on the application of prediction markets to [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928896 corporate governance]

'''Class-Constructed Markets'''

* Matthew: [http://www.intrade.net/market/detail/?contractId=337549#Democrat_to_Be_Elected_Virginia_Attorney_General_in_2009 2009 Virginia Attorney General Race]

* CKennedy: [http://www.intrade.net/market/detail/?contractId=337550#China%3A_Charter_08_more_than_1_million_signers_by_12.31.09 A Million Chinese Charterists]

* [[User:Dulles|Dulles]]: [http://www.intrade.net/market/listing/showEvent.faces?e=31362 Congress or FCC strengthens network neutrality principles by the end of 2010].

* [[User:Danray|Dan]]: [http://www.intrade.net/market/detail/?contractId=337892 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down all or part of Â§ 5 of the VRA this Term]
Andrew: Will General Motors file for Chapter 11 by April 20, 2009? http://www.intrade.net/market/detail/?contractId=338028#GM_Files_for_Chapter_11_by_4/20/09%3F

* [[User:DebbieRosenbaum|Debbie]]: [http://www.intrade.net/market/detail/?contractId=338029 Nesson Takes Down the RIAA]

* [[User:MSanchez|Msanchez]]: [http://www.intrade.net/market/detail/?contractId=338056 U.S. Recording Industry Cease Filing File-sharing Lawsuits]

* [[User:lbaker|Lee]]: [http://intrade.net/market/detail/?contractId=338191 In vitro meat for sale in US before 2020]

User talk:Mchua

2009-03-17T03:41:23Z

Lbaker: /* Follow-up */

== Navigation ==

Please edit [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] to fix the links in the left column. [[User:Sethwoodworth|Sethwoodworth]] 13:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:: Done. (Actually done 2 months ago, but updating my talk page now...) [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 03:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

== Gobby ==

Hi Mel. Thanks for suggesting Gobby - from what I was able to gather from their website and a couple of minutes of single-user use, it seems like it might fit our needs. I'm having a problem installing it on my mac, though (actually, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that I'm having a problem installing DarwinPorts/MacPorts, which it seems is required for installing gobby on a mac). Do you know of any alternate software that might do the trick and has a more straight-forward installation process on both Windows and OS X? (I assume I'm not the only one using a mac, and further assume that anyone running Linux/Unix/etc. has sufficient skillz to figure it out)

Thanks a lot! [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Mel. Managed to actually follow the instructions properly this time and get it installed and get a multi-user session running, so all seems well. Enjoy NZ! [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== Etherpad ==

Yeah, I was also thinking Etherpad looked like a simpler alternative once I saw Aaron and Ayelet use it. The only problem is the limit on the number of simultaneous contributors (currently at eight), which I think would bar it from being perfectly useful for us. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 13:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

== Video conferencing ==

Hi Mel,

We're going to have a guest on March 30 that will need to interact with the class via videoconference (pretty much like today's class, except without the feed cutting out). Will we need a special classroom for this, or can we do it in Hauser 102/105? Is there anything that our guest will need to do on his end (just so that I can keep him informed)? What will we (our group) need to do in preparation for this?

Thanks a lot!

=== Follow-up ===

D'oh, Skybe and gTalk, how could I forget!? >.<

I'm a little worried about our guest not being able to hear questions/comments from our live guests and the "peanut gallery". Is there some way we can have (a) mic(s) that feed(s) into my laptop? Sometime like what Nessom/Fisher were using during the RIAA/Tenenbaum class (except without necessarily involving an entire A/V team). Thanks again!
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mel, I'll see if anyone has an appropriate bluetooth headphone, or just work with a mic extension cord. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 03:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-12T19:52:37Z

Lbaker: /* Class Outline */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement. In the meantime,

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Google_Book_Search_Settlement#Class_Participation Class Participation]).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*Peter Brantley's [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain critique] that the settlement is insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to enable readers to be able to alter the texts of books.

*For the highly ambitious, Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

== Further Research ==

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-12T19:51:56Z

Lbaker: /* Class Outline */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement. In the meantime,

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see class participation section).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*Peter Brantley's [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain critique] that the settlement is insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to enable readers to be able to alter the texts of books.

*For the highly ambitious, Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

== Further Research ==

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-12T19:51:06Z

Lbaker: /* Class Outline */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement. In the meantime,

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see below).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*Peter Brantley's [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain critique] that the settlement is insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to enable readers to be able to alter the texts of books.

*For the highly ambitious, Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

== Further Research ==

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-12T19:50:47Z

Lbaker: /* Class Discussion Issues */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement. In the meantime,

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Outline =

We will be working from the assumption that the current settlement will be approved by the court. How can we then mitigate the concerns that have been raised by libraries and the public within the framework determined by the settlement?

The class will begin with a short overview of the settlement itself, after which each of our guests will have ten minutes to present their views on the settlement and begin to answer the question posed above. We will follow this up with question we have prepared ourselves before turning it over to class discussion, guided by the Question Tool (see below).

Concerns we have identified generally fall within one of the following major headings:
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*Peter Brantley's [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain critique] that the settlement is insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to enable readers to be able to alter the texts of books.

*For the highly ambitious, Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

== Further Research ==

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-12T19:18:32Z

Lbaker: /* Class Participation */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement. In the meantime,

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Discussion Issues =
== Major Concerns of Libraries and Readers ==
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust and Monopoly (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

== Possible Responses of Libraries and Readers ==
* Urge modifications to the settlement
* Anticipate and adapt to post-settlement changes

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*Peter Brantley's [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain critique] that the settlement is insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to enable readers to be able to alter the texts of books.

*For the highly ambitious, Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

== Further Research ==

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool! ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/IIFGBS link]) Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-12T19:03:19Z

Lbaker: /* Class Participation */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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 parties announced the settlement on October 28, 2008. At some time after May 5, 2009, the court will conduct a hearing to consider the fairness of the settlement; the court will then accept or reject the settlement. In the meantime,

== Content of the Settlement ==
The settlement 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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Discussion Issues =
== Major Concerns of Libraries and Readers ==
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (including substantive legal implications of the settlement and public availability of copyright database)
* Interface (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; lack of collection organizing principles; fragmentation of works)

== Possible Responses of Libraries and Readers ==
* Urge modifications to the settlement
* Anticipate and adapt to post-settlement changes

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf Jonathan Band's summary of the settlement] on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann's article] outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ Letter in response by Paul Courant], head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search), challenging Darnton's criticism of the settlement.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496 Darnton's Response to Courant in the New York Review of Books] (skip the published version of Courant's letter here, which is a less detailed version of the letter posted on his blog at the link above)

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4 (Economic Terms for Google Book Search) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*Peter Brantley's [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain critique] that the settlement is insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to enable readers to be able to alter the texts of books.

*For the highly ambitious, Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

== Further Research ==

*For those with additional interest in this subject, Timothy Vollmer at pureinformation.org has compiled a comprehensive and regularly updated [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ list of links] to articles and blog posts about the settlement.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool (link to our "instance" forthcoming)! Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

We will also be compiling notes that come out from the discussion in (appropriately) a Google Docs document (again, link forthcoming). Everyone will thus have to provide us with your gmail accounts (we will ask you for that later). Since Google Docs limits the number of concurrent viewers/editors to 10, we would ask that you not keep the document open unless you are planning to contribute (we intend to have it projected during the discussion, so you will still be able to see it).

User talk:Mchua

2009-03-12T13:52:46Z

Lbaker: /* Video conferencing */

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-12T04:51:32Z

Lbaker: /* Optional Readings */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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.

== Content of the Settlement ==
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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Discussion Issues =
== Concerns of Libraries and Readers ==
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (substantive legal implications of the settlement)
* Flexibility & Collateral Uses (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; public availability of copyright database)

== Possible Responses of Libraries and Readers ==
* Urge modifications to the settlement
* Anticipate and adapt to post-settlement changes

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/113 ???].
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf A summary of the settlement] provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann 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.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ 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 [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*Peter Brantley's [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain critique] that the settlement is insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to enable readers to be able to alter the texts of books.

*For the highly ambitious, Walt Crawford at Cites and Insights has [http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i4.pdf compiled] (PDF) an enormous number of (excerpts from) blog posts, with commentary, in a 30-page newsletter. It covers the landscape up until late February.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool (link to our "instance" forthcoming)! Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

Talk:The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-11T00:27:29Z

Lbaker:

=Discussion of Guests=

==Invited Guests==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL) -- nonresponsive
* Professor Robert Darnton (Head of Harvard Libraries) -- unable to attend on Mar. 30
* Jonathan Hulbert (member of Harvard's Office of General Counsel) -- unable to attend
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA) -- nonresponsive

==Proposed Guests==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)
* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Discussion of Readings =
* [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/ This] is a recap of a conference that Grimmelmann and Vaidhyanathan attended.
* [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ 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. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
* The ALA Washington Office is compiling all of its posts on the settlement [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/ here]
* [http://www.nybooks.com/authors/32 Here's] the link to articles by Darnton on Google Book Search in the New York Review of Books.
* New York Times articles ([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?hp here] and [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20library&st=cse here])
* If we don't get a copy of the Libraries' report, we could use [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gbs-perspectives-from-alan-inouye.pdf 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project.

= Prior tech ideas =

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 [http://www.opencontentalliance.org/2009/01/25/a-monopoly-dressed-in-a-class-action-suit/#comment-323 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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

= General Discussion on the Internet and Publication =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-11T00:26:29Z

Lbaker: /* Class Participation/Use of Tech */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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?

= Brief Overview of the Google Book Search Settlement =

== History of the Settlement ==
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.

== Content of the Settlement ==
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.

== Implications of the Settlement ==
What does this [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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.

= Class Discussion Issues =
== Concerns of Libraries and Readers ==
* Access (including cost, number of public terminals, and permitted uses)
* Privacy and Security (including surveillance and censorship)
* Antitrust (with respect to both BBR and Google)
* Copyright (substantive legal implications of the settlement)
* Flexibility & Collateral Uses (eg. more imaginative annotation/modification options; public availability of copyright database)

== Possible Responses of Libraries and Readers ==
* Urge modifications to the settlement
* Anticipate and adapt to post-settlement changes

= Guests =
* [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=486 John G. Palfrey], Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, and [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jpalfrey Faculty Co-Director] of the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. (Blog located [http://radio.weblogs.com/0117678/ here].)
* [http://www.debevoise.com/Attorneys/detail.aspx?id=541bb1af-ea41-4f18-b528-d40bdefabbfb&type=showfullbio Jeffrey P. Cunard] (via videoconference), managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/113 ???].
* Allan A. Ryan, Director of Intellectual Property at [http://harvardbusiness.org/ Harvard Business Publishing].

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf A summary of the settlement] provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann 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.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ 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 [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*Peter Brantley's [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain critique] that the settlement is insufficiently imaginative, in part for failing to enable readers to be able to alter the texts of books.

= Class Participation =

We will be using our old friend, the Berkman Question Tool (link to our "instance" forthcoming)! Prior to the date of the class, we will be putting up some questions that we feel are particular relevant and topical. We invite everyone to check these questions out prior to the class, add your own questions, make comments, and vote up questions you find particularly interesting. We will be using this list of questions to guide the discussion, especially in the second part of the class.

User talk:Mchua

2009-03-09T23:59:13Z

Lbaker: /* Video conferencing */ new section

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-03-09T21:06:36Z

Lbaker: /* Discussion of Readings */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 ==

* [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf A summary of the settlement] provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann 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.
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 Robert Darnton's article in the New York Review of Books] criticizing the settlement (or, for those who prefer to listen rather than read, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100969810 hear Darnton's criticisms on NPR).]
* [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ 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 [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf full settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

*Peter Brantley's [http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2009/01/26/a-fire-on-the-plain 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 ==
* [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/ This] is a recap of a conference that Grimmelmann and Vaidhyanathan attended.
* [http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/ 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. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
* The ALA Washington Office is compiling all of its posts on the settlement [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/ here]
* [http://www.nybooks.com/authors/32 Here's] the link to articles by Darnton on Google Book Search in the New York Review of Books.
* New York Times articles ([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?hp here] and [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20library&st=cse here])
* If we don't get a copy of the Libraries' report, we could use [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gbs-perspectives-from-alan-inouye.pdf 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf 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 [http://www.opencontentalliance.org/2009/01/25/a-monopoly-dressed-in-a-class-action-suit/#comment-323 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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

2009-03-02T04:33:05Z

Lbaker: /* Tools and Examples */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mel]]''' - it's worth noting that we have a KSG student, an MBA student, and an engineer in our group, and no lawyers or law students, so expect this session to come from a slightly different perspective.

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

== Before class ==

To prepare before class, please do the following.

# Read the [[#Precis]], which will introduce you to the main topics of the session.
# Read and consider the [[#Core questions]] we will be discussing during the session.
# Read and complete the [[#Workshop prep]] exercise. This should take you no more than 20 minutes.
# Read the [[#Mandatory]] readings; there are 4 total; 2 are short, and 1 can be skimmed.

== Precis ==

Activism is "intentional action to bring about social or political change" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism]). In this sense, activist have used the web for mobilizing people for all kinds of social causes, ranging from the tremendous success of the Obama campaign's online efforts to post-election citizen journalism and [http://www.netsquared.org/2008/conference/projects/ushahidi crisis mapping mash-ups] in Kenya to your basic online petition or full-scale and often illegal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism hacktivist] activities. New tools are emerging for coordinating concrete action and volunteering ([http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank], [http://www.thepoint.org The Point], [http://www.zoosa.org Zoosa]) as well as fundraising and matching donors and social entrepreneurs ([http://apps.facebook.com/causes/about Facebook Causes], [http://www.donorschoose.org DonorsChoose], [http://www.socialvibe.com Socialvibe]), and other tools not explicitly designed for social action in particular ([http://www.twitter.com Twitter], collaborative document editing, IMs and text messages) are being pressed into service by tech-savvy grassroots organizers, sometimes to great effect.

While online tools are being used by activists whose causes and organizations may have had long histories pre-internet, we also must consider internet activism in terms of new fields of action taken around issues of new issues of concern that the internet has given rise to -- see, for instance, Grey Tuesday, a day of coordinated electronic civil disobedience to distribute DJ Dangermouse's mashup, "Grey Album," or Berkman's own OpenNet Initiative which monitors and reports on internet filtering and surveillance practices by governments around the world.

Sandor Vegh, in his chapter of ''Cyberactivism'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayershas [http://books.google.com/books?id=KHCjMkNRAkYC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Classifying+Forms+of+Online+Activism:+The+Case+of+Cyberprotests+Against+the+World+Bank&source=bl&ots=NtXY2ND1Ma&sig=XnCYz7850aSl2nJZNmQ4NTIeRak&hl=en&ei=1C-eSdmNLZaitgff2bWGDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result suggests three categories] of "Cyberacticism":

{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
|-valign="top"
! Category || Uses || Examples || Tools
|-
| awareness/advocacy || Blogging, petitions || [http://www.peta.org PETA], [http://w2.eff.org/br/ Blue Ribbon Campaign] || Websites, mass mailings, podcasts, RSS
|-
| organization/mobilization || Campaigning, fundraising, volunteering, community building || [http://www.moveon.org Moveon], [http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/08/05/CU2005080501141.html?whichDay=1 Al Qaeda], Myanmar uprising || Websites, mass mailings, mobile applications, online/offline hybrids
|-
| direct online action/reaction || Electronic civil disobedience, hacktivism || [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_during_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war Cyberattacks during the 2008 South Ossetia war] || DDoS, website vandalizing, trojans, mass mailings
|}

While these categories may offer a useful initial framework, many activists leverage all of these categories of activism in their work.

== Core questions ==

Needless to say, there are any of a number of ways to tackle a topic of this breadth but here are just a few structural and tactical questions to consider while doing the readings for class:

1. An issue of tactics: What are the success factors of online activism tools? (And how much of the success of any given campaign can be attributed to the internet tools used as opposed to a superior ground operation or a more compelling issue/candidate?) Is there a generalizable model here? What are the parallels and differences with the way for-profit firms have tried to harness these tools? Further, as Ethan Zuckerman notes, "any sufficiently advanced read/write technology will get used for two purposes: pornography and activism. Porn is a weak test for the success of participatory media - it’s like tapping a mike and asking, “Is it on?” If you’re not getting porn in your system, it doesn’t work. Activism is a stronger test - if activists are using your tools, it’s a pretty good indication that your tools are useful and usable." What online technologies have yet to be fully exploited by activists and why?

2. How do we define and measure success of online activism? Do online tools for activists allow for one to feel simply satisfied with a lazier, shallow degree of involvement (the median earned by many Facebook causes prominently displayed on so many users' pages is under $50) or does it create new ladders of engagement? What is the meaning of your number of viewers, of addresses on your mailing list, or of Facebook friends for your cause? What is the fundamental difference between a computer mediated act of civil disobedience versus one offline?

3. Compared to traditional modes of activist engagement, digital tools change both the meaning and tactics of democratic participation. Still, we have to examine, who is in now and who is out now? Who has access and who still may not have it? How do old digital divides play out or new ones emerge? To what extent do these tools allow us to subvert hierarchies of power or to what extent do they create new hierarchies and gatekeepers? (i.e. Who participated by submitting questions to the YouTube Presidential debates in 2008? Given certain barriers to access, what voices or issues might not have been heard?)

4. Online activism often creates decentralized organizations, which act and react very differently than the centralized organizations most of us are used to, so both leveraging and counteracting distributed activist communities can be counterintuitive. What things can decentralized online movements do more easily than centralized (online or offline) ones, and what strategies might activists and/or their opponents do to take advantage of these tendencies to either promote or counteract a cause?

== Contributors ==

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/ Ethan Zuckerman], Berkman Center Fellow, Co-Founder of [http://www.globalvoicesonline.org GlobalVoicesOnline.org], providing both practical and theoretical expertise with focus on applications in the developing world.
* [http://www.nicco.org Nicco Mele], IOP Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, founder of [http://www.echoditto.com/ EchoDitto], former Internet Operations Director of Gov. Dean's presidential primary campaign in 2003

== Session design ==

=== Workshop prep ===

''To be done before class.''

During class, we will be splitting into 6 randomly assigned teams for a rocket pitch workshop session. Teams will be competing to create and pitch ideas for internet-based projects for various hypothetical clients, played (and judged) by the session team (Mel, Rainer, and Elana), the course professors, and our guests.

'''Assignment:''' Examine online tools (software programs and platforms) that have been or could be used for online activism. Come to class with a list of 5 tools or interesting causes/campaigns that you examined - at least one of them should be something new you've added to the list at [[#Tools]]. Each entry on the list should contain the following parts:

* Name of tool - http://link-to-the-tool-if-possible.com - 1-2 sentence description of what types of projects/demographics/causes this tool would be particularly suited to AND/OR a link to an example of this tool being used for a specific activism project.

'''Requirements:''' The [[#Tools]] section below has some ideas for starters, but you must add at least one new item to the list as part of your 5 items. Tools must be internet-based in some way, but do not necessarily need to be limited to personal computers; cellphone/SMS apps, location-based tags and artifacts that somehow link or point to online spaces, etc. are also valid. Custom-developed applications that were developed and deployed for a specific project are ok, even if they cannot be reused for future projects - they're great examples.

Non-mandatory but probably helpful: you can read about the [[#Workshop]] format for the exact times and materials you'll have available, as well as the [[#Judging]] criteria.

=== Activity intro (10 minutes) ===

We will first explain the ground rules of the rocket pitch workshop which will be held later in the session and introduce the 3 scenarios involved.

=== Guests present case studies (30 minutes) ===

Next, our guests will give short case study examples of projects they've worked on and tactics they've used. During this part of the session, students are encouraged to write down (on pieces of paper) questions they'd like to bring up, and to save those papers for the discussion after the workshop.

=== Workshop ===

''(50 minutes)''

You will be divided into 6 teams. Teams will roleplay the parts of teams assigned to create internet-based projects for various activism scenarios. Teams will compete to create the best 1-minute rocket pitch of their project idea. The 1-minute timing will be strict; we'll cut you off at 60 seconds.

* You get 30 seconds to set up and 1 minute to present.
* Each group gets 3 big sheets of paper ("slides") and a marker for each round. You do not have to use the paper. However, projector setup will count against your time...
* Groups can use any resources (including computers) and work anywhere they want.
* Your presentation can be and use any things or people you want.

* 20 minutes: First scenario prep
* 10 minutes: First scenario presentations and [[#Judging]]
* 10 minutes: Second scenario prep
* 10 minutes: Second scenario presentations and [[#Judging]]

=== Judging ===

''Judging is interspersed with the [[#Workshop]].''

Presentations will be judged on the following criteria, evenly weighted.

''Criteria are still subject to change, and final judging criteria will be announced at the beginning of the session, but this is the current draft.''

* '''Tactics:''' Is your strategy well-articulated? Can we envison how you will carry out your game plan, and do we believe it's probable that you will reach your goals with the resources and timeframe you've been allotted?
* '''Measurement:''' What is your goal? Have you defined what it would mean for your project to be successful, and how you will measure and determine your success?
* '''Analysis of competition:''' Did you articulate why your approach is better than others that might exist?
* '''Utilization of the Internet:''' Are you taking full advantage of the online medium? (Why would your project be more difficult/impossible offline?)
* '''Leveraging your audience:''' Did you articulate who you are trying to engage, and in what manner? Will your community be (or be working against one that is) centralized, decentralized, or hybrid - and why? If you are trying to build a community, how will you most effectively leverage the type of community you have chosen to build? If you are not trying to build a community, why not?
* '''Creativity:''' Are you using tools or processes in an unique way that nobody has tried before? Are you advocating a cause or reaching an audience not commonly addressed through this medium? Are you in some way doing something crazy and new?

Note that we are ''not'' judging you on how well you pitch the ''cause,'' only the project. The judges are assuming the roles of supporters of the cause who want to fund your project, so you can safely assume that the judges (1) know all about your cause and (2) are already completely convinced that it is the best thing in the world.

=== Discussion (30 minutes)===

Students are now encouraged to bring out the questions they had earlier; we'll use these as the basis for a followup discussion.

== Readings ==

=== Mandatory ===

* [http://www.articlearchives.com/law-legal-system/constitutional-law-freedom-press/1832458-1.html''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,''] by the law professor Seth Kreimer.
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/03/08/the-cute-cat-theory-talk-at-etech/ Ethan Zuckerman's Cute Cat Theory of Digital Activism] (This is available in .mp3 format for free in podcast section of the iTunes store --CKennedy)
* [http://publius.cc/2008/12/09/from-the-bottom-up-using-the-internet-to-mobilize-campaign-participation From the Bottom-Up: Using the Internet to Mobilize Campaign Participation] by Dana Fisher, a short article that compares the strategies of Obama and McCain's online campaigns. (skim)
* Summaries and selections from ''The Starfish and the Spider'' by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, focused on pages 133-158 on "taking on decentralization," which argues that conventional attack tactics fail against decentralized activism, and presents several strategies that can be used instead. Read the [http://magazine.redhat.com/2007/02/05/book-review-the-starfish-and-the-spider/ Red Hat Magazine review] by Jeff Mackanic and Greg DeKoenigsberg, which summarizes the main points, then see the [[Crib notes]] from p. 133-158 on attacking decentralization. (The entire book is worth reading as a framework for understanding decentralized movements.)
* [http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html "Power Laws, Web Logs and Inequality"] by Clay Shirky

=== Optional ===

* ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. (This book is difficult to get hold of, but good supplementary reading if you're interested and can procure a copy.)
* [http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/ Rebooting America: Ideas for Redesigning American Democracy for the Internet Age]
* http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/12/10/open-for-questions-participation-from-campaigning-to-governing/
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-exley/the-new-organizers-part-1_b_132782.html The New Organizers: What's Really Behind Obama's Ground Game] from HuffPo.com
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25bloggers-t.html?fta=y "Revolution Facebook Style: Can social networking turn young Egyptians into a force for Democratic Change?"] from the New York Times
*[http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12815678 "Rioters of the World Unite: They have nothing to lose but their web cameras"] from the Economist. See Patrick Meier's critique of the piece [http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/snap-mobs-of-the-world-unite-a-better-taxonomy/ here.]
* [http://mobileactive.org/wireless-technology-social-change-11-case-studies "Wireless Technology for Social Change: Trends in NGO Mobile Use"]

== Tools and Examples ==

* [http://www.digiactive.org/wp-content/uploads/digiactive_facebook_activism.pdf DigiActive Introduction to Facebook Activism]
* [http://apps.facebook.com/causes/about Facebook Causes]
* [http://www.netsquared.org/2008/conference/projects/ushahidi Crisis mapping mash-ups in Kenya]
* [http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank]
* [http://www.zoosa.org Zoosa]
* [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ Global Voices]
* [http://www.donorschoose.org DonorsChoose]
* [http://www.socialvibe.com Socialvibe]
* [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]
* [http://www.frontlinesms.com/ Frontline SMS]
* [http://discoverscholars.org/ DiscoverScholars]
* [http://www.socialvibe.com/ SocialVibe]
* [http://www.techsoup.org/index.cfm TechSoup]
* [http://mobileactive.org/ MobileActive]
* [http://theuptake.org/ TheUpTake], a citizen journalism site whose efforts are summarized [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UpTake here]. An example of their success in promoting political awareness is the coleman / franken recount and trials. [http://uptake-editorial.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/1694/ link]. (This is where we are supposed to put our one new entry before class right?)
* [http://freeconnie.com/ Free Connie]. A friend of mine from college, now at USC law, is defending a woman who suffered from BWS and has served her time in jail. With the help of another one of our friends, he put together this site for public activism on her case.
* [http://ipetitions.com/ iPetitions]
* [http://capitoladvantage.com/ Capitol Advantage] Leading provider of Internet tools for congressional communication and civic participation.
* [http://www2.democracyinaction.org/ DemocracyInAction] is a non-profit that provides a suite of tools for progressive organizations, including fundraising, communications, and contact management.
* [http://carrotmob.org/about/ Carrotmob]is the opposite of a boycott. Businesses compete with one another to see who can do the most good (locally sourced produce, green energy etc) and carrotmob organises a huge group of people to descend on the business and buy products "in order to reward whichever business made the strongest commitment to improve the world".
* [http://www.spot.us/ Spot.us] - community-funded journalism site, where freelance reporters publish proposals for local-interest stories that they want to write, and users contribute money to the proposals that interest them until there's enough for the story to be written.
* [http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blackout.html] - The New Zealand Internet Blackout
** ...based (I suspect) on the [http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9602/cyber_censors/index.html American blackout] to protest the Communications Decency Act back in '96.
* All the "For every ''x'' people who join, I'll donate $''y'' to ''z''" groups on Facebook
* [http://stealth.strangecompany.org/ "Stealth,"] a piece of machinima created with the WoW engine - this was created to help visualize a fairly abstract proposal to screw up copyrightÂ law in Britain, and at the same time mobilize a demographic that's (at least stereotypically) apathetic about politics.
* [http://www.rflofsl.org/ Relay for Life of Second Life] - 'nuff said
* [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/ Care2 petitionsite] - create a petition, have people sign it, then send it off (what else would you do with a petition, after all?)

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-02-23T00:52:32Z

Lbaker: /* Discussion of Readings */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 =
== Confirmed Guests ==
* Professor John Palfrey

== Invited Guests ==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL)
* Professor Robert Darnton (Head of Harvard Libraries) -- unable to attend on Mar. 30
* Jonathan Hulbert (member of Harvard's Office of General Counsel) -- unable to attend
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA)

== Discussion of Guests ==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* A [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf summary] of the Google Books settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* 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. If we don't get a copy of the report, we can at least use [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gbs-perspectives-from-alan-inouye.pdf these initial thoughts] from the ALA.
* Robert Darnton's [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 piece] on the settlement in the New York Review of Books.
* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project AND/OR this [http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert-darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/ blog post] from the head of the University of Michigan's library (a participant in Google Book Search) challenging Darton's negative views of the settlement
* An [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann article] by James Grimmelmann outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

== Discussion of Readings ==
* [http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/10/google-books-settlement-readers-guide 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. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
* The ALA Washington Office is compiling all of its posts on the settlement [http://wo.ala.org/gbs/ here]
* [http://www.nybooks.com/authors/32 Here's] the link to articles by Darnton on Google Book Search in the New York Review of Books.
* New York Times articles ([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?hp here] and [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20library&st=cse here])

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

= 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 [http://www.opencontentalliance.org/2009/01/25/a-monopoly-dressed-in-a-class-action-suit/#comment-323 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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

= General Discussion on the Internet and Publication =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-02-19T22:37:34Z

Lbaker: /* Precis */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html settlement] mean for libraries and the reading public? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 =
== Confirmed Guests ==
* Professor John Palfrey

== Invited Guests ==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL)
* Professor Robert Darnton (Head of Harvard Libraries) -- unable to attend on Mar. 30
* Jonathan Hulbert (member of Harvard's Office of General Counsel)
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA)

== Discussion of Guests ==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* A [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the Google Books settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* 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 [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 piece] on the settlement in the New York Review of Books.
* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project.
* An [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann article] by James Grimmelmann outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

== Discussion of Readings ==
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21514 Here's] the link to articles by Darnton on Google Book Search in the New York Review of Books.
* There are a number of news stories about Google & Libraries, e.g. at [http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/12/02/google_vs_the_libraries/ boston.com]
* There have been a number of recent news articles discussing the implications of the settlement, e.g. in the [http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6633319.html?desc=topstory Library Journal], New York Times ([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?hp here] and [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20library&st=cse here]), and [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/01/26/few-free-books-in-the-google-library/ Wall Street Journal]. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

* Harvard [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 withdrew] from the Google Book project because it found the terms of the settlement agreement unpalatable. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

* An [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 article] from the Harvard Crimson on Harvard's withdrawal from the Google Book 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).

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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

= General Discussion on the Internet and Publication =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scheduling

2009-02-19T21:44:54Z

Lbaker:

Here's where the scheduling happens. No need to claim a day landrush-style; just add in what day your guests have said they're available.

{| {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Monday (5-7pm)'''
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Presenters' names'''
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Topic name'''
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Guests (confirmed)'''
| align="center" style="background:#dddddd;"|'''Guests (not yet confirmed)'''
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|This||is||a||sample||line.
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|2-Feb||||||||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|9-Feb||Ayelet, Aaron||[[Encouraging the Intellectual Commons|Free and Open Source Software]]||||Eben Moglen or someone from the Software Freedom Law Center, Mako
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|16-Feb||Graham, Mark||[[The Internet and Societal Inequity|Internet and Social Inequity]]||Eszter Hargittai||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|23-Feb||Debbie, Shubham, and Matt||[[Old Laws/New Media]]||[[Prof. Charles Nesson]]||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|2-Mar||Mel, Elana, Rainer||[[All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org]]||Ethan Zuckerman||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|9-Mar||Dharmishta Rood & Jon Fildes||[[The Future of News]]||Russ Stanton, Jeff Jarvis||||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|16-Mar||Joe & Miriam||[[The Future of %C2%A9 and entertainment|The Future of (c) & Entertainment]]||Stacey Lynn Schulman|| Various artists
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|30-Mar||Gwen, Jon, Lee||[[The Google Book Search Settlement]]||Prof. John Palfrey, Jeffrey Cunard (remote)||Robert Darnton, Jonathan Hulbert, Corey Williams, Prue Adler
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|6-Apr||Dan Ray, Joshua Gruenspecht, & Conor Kennedy||[[Anonymity and privacy|The Increasingly Inaccurately Named Class on Anonymity & Privacy]]||'''Guest 1:''' Colin Maclay||'''Guest 2:''' Andrew McLaughlin, a rep from Yahoo's Bus. & Hum. Rights Program, or another rep of an international online communications tools provider; '''Guest 3:''' a representative of or expert on the Simulation Country OR a representative of a human rights group OR a Congressional representative (e.g., Rick Boucher, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Boucher House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet]; Chris Smith, [http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=27237 House Representative from New Jersey])
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|13-Apr||Andrew Klaber & David Levine||[[Internet, Industry, and Investing|The Internet, Industry and Investing]]||Peter Thiel||Peter Thiel (PayPal founder, Facebook early investor, Clarium Capital hedge fund founder, The Founders Fund venture capital founder)
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|20-Apr||Vera Ranieri & Arjun Mehra||[[Internet Governance and Regulation|Internet Governance & Regulation]]||Milton Mueller of the Internet Governance Project||
|-
|style="background: #dddddd;"|27-Apr|||Elisabeth Theodore & Matthew Wansley||[[Prediction Markets]]||Justin Wolfers||Hal Varian

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-02-16T21:26:08Z

Lbaker: /* Precis */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 =

[Insert brief history of the Google Book Project, the lawsuit, and the settlement]

What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 Google book digitization project will bring with it many changes, and not just for Google and the authors' and publishers' representatives who signed the deal. General readers and libraries will also be affected. 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 =
== Confirmed Guests ==
* Professor John Palfrey

== Invited Guests ==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL)
* Professor Robert Darnton (Head of Harvard Libraries) -- unable to attend on Mar. 30
* Jonathan Hulbert (member of Harvard's Office of General Counsel)
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA)

== Discussion of Guests ==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* A [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the Google Books settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* 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 [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 piece] on the settlement in the New York Review of Books.
* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project.
* An [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann article] by James Grimmelmann outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

== Discussion of Readings ==
* There are a number of news stories about Google & Libraries, e.g. at [http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/12/02/google_vs_the_libraries/ boston.com]
* There have been a number of recent news articles discussing the implications of the settlement, e.g. in the [http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6633319.html?desc=topstory Library Journal], New York Times ([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?hp here] and [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20library&st=cse here]), and [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/01/26/few-free-books-in-the-google-library/ Wall Street Journal]. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

* Harvard [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 withdrew] from the Google Book project because it found the terms of the settlement agreement unpalatable. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

* An [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 article] from the Harvard Crimson on Harvard's withdrawal from the Google Book 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).

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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

= General Discussion on the Internet and Publication =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-02-16T21:24:15Z

Lbaker: /* Discussion of Readings */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 =

What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 Google book digitization project will bring with it many changes, and not just for Google and the authors' and publishers' representatives who signed the deal. General readers and libraries will also be affected. 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 =
== Confirmed Guests ==
* Professor John Palfrey

== Invited Guests ==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL)
* Professor Robert Darnton (Head of Harvard Libraries) -- unable to attend on Mar. 30
* Jonathan Hulbert (member of Harvard's Office of General Counsel)
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA)

== Discussion of Guests ==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* A [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the Google Books settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* 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 [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 piece] on the settlement in the New York Review of Books.
* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project.
* An [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann article] by James Grimmelmann outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

== Discussion of Readings ==
* There are a number of news stories about Google & Libraries, e.g. at [http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/12/02/google_vs_the_libraries/ boston.com]
* There have been a number of recent news articles discussing the implications of the settlement, e.g. in the [http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6633319.html?desc=topstory Library Journal], New York Times ([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?hp here] and [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20library&st=cse here]), and [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/01/26/few-free-books-in-the-google-library/ Wall Street Journal]. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

* Harvard [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 withdrew] from the Google Book project because it found the terms of the settlement agreement unpalatable. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

* An [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 article] from the Harvard Crimson on Harvard's withdrawal from the Google Book 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).

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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

= General Discussion on the Internet and Publication =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-02-16T21:23:59Z

Lbaker: /* Assigned Readings */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 =

What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 Google book digitization project will bring with it many changes, and not just for Google and the authors' and publishers' representatives who signed the deal. General readers and libraries will also be affected. 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 =
== Confirmed Guests ==
* Professor John Palfrey

== Invited Guests ==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL)
* Professor Robert Darnton (Head of Harvard Libraries) -- unable to attend on Mar. 30
* Jonathan Hulbert (member of Harvard's Office of General Counsel)
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA)

== Discussion of Guests ==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* A [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the Google Books settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* 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 [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 piece] on the settlement in the New York Review of Books.
* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project.
* An [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann article] by James Grimmelmann outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement

== Optional Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).

== Discussion of Readings ==
* There are a number of news stories about Google & Libraries, e.g. at [http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/12/02/google_vs_the_libraries/ boston.com]
* There have been a number of recent news articles discussing the implications of the settlement, e.g. in the [http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6633319.html?desc=topstory Library Journal], New York Times ([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?hp here] and [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20library&st=cse here]), and [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/01/26/few-free-books-in-the-google-library/ Wall Street Journal]. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

* Harvard [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 withdrew] from the Google Book project because it found the terms of the settlement agreement unpalatable. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

= 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).

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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

= General Discussion on the Internet and Publication =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mchua

2009-02-10T13:12:36Z

Lbaker:

Permissions

2009-02-09T22:08:30Z

Lbaker: /* Blanket permission: Attribution is OK */

== Introduction ==

This course involves using the Internet in novel ways. Some of those ways may involve recording the class sessions and making them available in real time or as archives, and in full or in part, to external audiences -- and soliciting contributions from those audiences. We want to ensure that this experimentation is consonant with participants' privacy expectations. Unless explicitly stated otherwise or agreed below, all content from the class wiki, mailing list, the class time itself, and class-related discussions may be quoted and paraphrased under the Chatham House rule -- i.e. without attribution to the speaker. In other words, it is all right to say "Someone in my IIF class said that..."

== Options ==

For things that can be attributed to individuals, or for which identification with an individual is unavoidable (for instance, video), we have three options; please indicate your choice below or by communicating with the profs --

=== Blanket permission: Attribution is OK ===

Everything is okay to share and attribute to relevant individuals.

* '''support.''' I don't think we will be sharing any confidential details amongst ourselves, and this will make it much easier for our work to be spread. I'd even suggest [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ cc-by] for all our coursework. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 10:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
* I hereby license all my brilliant pearls of wisdom under this "OK by default" license. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 15:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
* This system is fine with me, too. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
* Works for me. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
* Me too. Terry
* Yup, I'm okay with this too. [[User:Jharrow|Jharrow]] 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
* This is fine with me. [[User:Drood|Dharmishta]]
* I support this option [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

=== Attribution must be sought on a case by case basis when class participation or contributions are to be used externally ===

For those who want to attribute a contribution or post something with identifiable individuals, permission must be sought.

=== Blanket denial: Attribution is not wanted under any circumstances ===

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-02-07T23:20:30Z

Lbaker: /* Assigned Readings */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 =

What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 Google book digitization project will bring with it many changes, and not just for Google and the authors' and publishers' representatives who signed the deal. General readers and libraries will also be affected. 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 =
== Confirmed Guests ==
* Professor John Palfrey

== Invited Guests ==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL)
* Professor Robert Darnton (Head of Harvard Libraries) -- unable to attend on Mar. 30
* Jonathan Hulbert (member of Harvard's Office of General Counsel)
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA)

== Discussion of Guests ==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).
* A [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the Google Books settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* 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 [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 piece] on the settlement in the New York Review of Books.
* An [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 article] from the Harvard Crimson on Harvard's withdrawal from the Google Book project.
* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project.
* An [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=james_grimmelmann article] by James Grimmelmann outlining potential problems with, and revisions to, the settlement

== Discussion of Readings ==
* There have been a number of recent news articles discussing the implications of the settlement, e.g. in the [http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6633319.html?desc=topstory Library Journal], New York Times ([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?hp here] and [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20library&st=cse here]), and [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/01/26/few-free-books-in-the-google-library/ Wall Street Journal]. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

* Harvard [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 withdrew] from the Google Book project because it found the terms of the settlement agreement unpalatable. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

= 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).

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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

= General Discussion on the Internet and Publication =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-02-02T23:45:14Z

Lbaker: /* Class Participation/Use of Tech */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 =

What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 Google book digitization project will bring with it many changes, and not just for Google and the authors' and publishers' representatives who signed the deal. General readers and libraries will also be affected. 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 =
== Confirmed Guests ==
* Professor John Palfrey

== Invited Guests ==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL)
* Professor Robert Darnton (Head of Harvard Libraries) -- unable to attend on Mar. 30
* Jonathan Hulbert (member of Harvard's Office of General Counsel)
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA)

== Discussion of Guests ==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* Skim the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], focusing on Article 4.8 (Public Access Service) and Article 7 (Obligations and Rights of Participating Libraries).
* A [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the Google Books settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* 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 [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 piece] on the settlement in the New York Review of Books.
* An [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 article] from the Harvard Crimson on Harvard's withdrawal from the Google Book project.
* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project.
* A [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 blog post] outlining potential problems with the settlement and proposing some revisions to it.

== Discussion of Readings ==
* There have been a number of recent news articles discussing the implications of the settlement, e.g. in the [http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6633319.html?desc=topstory Library Journal], New York Times ([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?hp here] and [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20library&st=cse here]), and [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/01/26/few-free-books-in-the-google-library/ Wall Street Journal]. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

* Harvard [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 withdrew] from the Google Book project because it found the terms of the settlement agreement unpalatable. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

= 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).

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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

= General Discussion =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-01-29T02:51:08Z

Lbaker: /* Class Participation/Use of Tech */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 and those who were not? In particular, what changes will libraries (public, private, and university), publishers, and readers face going forward, and how should they respond?

= Precis =

What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 Google book digitization project will bring with it many changes, and not just for the Google corporation and the authors' representatives who signed the deal. Readers, publishers, and libraries will all be affected by this settlement, and each group will likely face a different set of benefits and problems. With a focus on publishers (both private and academic) and 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 =
== Confirmed Guests ==
* Professor Robert Darnton
* Professor John Palfrey

== Invited Guests ==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL)
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA)

== Discussion of Guests ==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* The [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], especially Article VII on the obligations and rights of participating libraries.
* A [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the Google Books settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* 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.
* An [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 article] from the Harvard Crimson on Harvard's withdrawal from the Google Book project.
* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project.
* A [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 blog post] outlining potential problems with the settlement and proposing some revisions to it.

== Discussion of Readings ==

* Harvard [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 withdrew] from the Google Book project because it found the terms of the settlement agreement unpalatable. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

= 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).

This list of recommendations will be projected, drafted, and edited dynamically throughout the session. Ideally, some technology that would allow for simultaneous editing, as opposed to the one-at-a-time restrictions of the wiki format, would be employed. 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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We will be using Gobby as a means of collaborating, as suggested by Mel (thanks Mel!).
*For Windows users, download it [http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/wiki/Download here]
*For Mac users, follow the instructions [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Mac+OS+X here]
*For Unix users, the instructions are [http://www.divvun.no/doc/tools/gobby.html#Linux here]

= General Discussion =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mchua

2009-01-29T02:44:53Z

Lbaker: /* Gobby */

User talk:Mchua

2009-01-27T03:59:20Z

Lbaker: /* Gobby */

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-01-24T21:12:46Z

Lbaker: /* Class Participation/Use of Tech */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

'''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 and those who were not? In particular, what changes will libraries (public, private, and university), publishers, and readers face going forward, and how should they respond?

= Precis =

What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 Google book digitization project will bring with it many changes, and not just for the Google corporation and the authors' representatives who signed the deal. Readers, publishers, and libraries will all be affected by this settlement, and each group will likely face a different set of benefits and problems. With a focus on publishers (both private and academic) and 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 =
== Confirmed Guests ==
* Professor Robert Darnton
* Professor John Palfrey

== Invited Guests ==
* Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director, ARL)
* Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations, ALA)

== Discussion of Guests ==
* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey, Jonathan Hulbert (lawyer in Harvard's Office of the General Counsel involved in the negotiations)
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= Readings =

== Assigned Readings ==

* The [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/intl/en/Settlement-Agreement.pdf settlement agreement], especially Article VII on the obligations and rights of participating libraries.
* A [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the Google Books settlement provided by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association.
* 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.
* An [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 article] from the Harvard Crimson on Harvard's withdrawal from the Google Book project.
* A [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf statement] from some public university libraries in support of the project.
* A [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 blog post] outlining potential problems with the settlement and proposing some revisions to it.

== Discussion of Readings ==

* Harvard [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524989 withdrew] from the Google Book project because it found the terms of the settlement agreement unpalatable. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

* On February 9, the [http://www.arl.org/ ARL], [http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/index.cfm ACRL] and [http://www.ala.org/ 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.[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

= 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).

This list of recommendations will be projected, drafted, and edited dynamically throughout the session. Ideally, some technology that would allow for simultaneous editing, as opposed to the one-at-a-time restrictions of the wiki format, would be employed. 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). [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some technologies under consideration are:
* Gobby - if someone can get this to install cleanly on Mac OSX, and get a multi-user session running, please let us know how
* Synchroedit - the last I visited this site, it could not load the document. If someone is having better luck, again please let us know
* Google Docs - so far nobody I have talked to has had experience editing a document with more than 2 users simultaneously. If you can vouch that it works with more users (and has no user cap), please let us know

= General Discussion =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mchua

2009-01-20T03:15:38Z

Lbaker:

== where are you? ==

I need to find you. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 12:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)

== Navigation ==

Please edit [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] to fix the links in the left column. [[User:Sethwoodworth|Sethwoodworth]] 13:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Gobby ==

Hi Mel. Thanks for suggesting Gobby - from what I was able to gather from their website and a couple of minutes of single-user use, it seems like it might fit our needs. I'm having a problem installing it on my mac, though (actually, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that I'm having a problem installing DarwinPorts/MacPorts, which it seems is required for installing gobby on a mac). Do you know of any alternate software that might do the trick and has a more straight-forward installation process on both Windows and OS X? (I assume I'm not the only one using a mac, and further assume that anyone running Linux/Unix/etc. has sufficient skillz to figure it out)

Thanks a lot! [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Scheduling

2009-01-13T01:36:36Z

Lbaker:

Scheduling

2009-01-13T01:33:50Z

Lbaker: Undo revision 1097 by Lbaker (Talk)

Scheduling

2009-01-13T01:33:16Z

Lbaker:

The Google Book Search Settlement

2009-01-07T15:51:44Z

Lbaker: /* Class Participation/Use of Tech */

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

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 and those who were not? In particular, what changes will libraries (public, private, and university), publishers, and readers face going forward, and how should they respond?

= Precis =

What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "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 Google book digitization project will bring with it many changes, and not just for the Google corporation and the authors' representatives who signed the deal. Readers, publishers, and libraries will all be affected by this settlement, and each group will likely face a different set of benefits and problems. With a focus on publishers (both private and academic) and 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.

= (Possible) Guests =

* Google Book Search settlement
** Google - Alex MacGillivray (chief in-house counsel for IP)
** Authors
*** [http://www.bonizack.com/ Michael Boni or Joanne Zack] (primary negotiators of the settlement for authors (including the Authors' Guild))
** Publishing groups - Jeffrey Cunard (Debevoise, Berkman, one of the primary negotiators of the settlement for publishers (including the AAP))
** Libraries
*** ALA - Corey Williams (Associate Director, Office of Government Relations)
*** ARL - Prue Adler (Associate Executive Director)
*** Harvard Libraries - Robert Darnton (director), John Palfrey
** Other Commentators
*** Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)

* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

= (Possible) Readings =

* 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. [[User:Gwen|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. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association have released a neutral [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/ summary] of the settlement that highlights the most relevant parts for libraries. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/joint-press/Joint%20Press%20Release.pdf Here] is an interesting statement from some of the public university libraries about their support for the agreement and what they view as its benefits. [[User:Cooper|Cooper]] 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

* Less specifically related to libraries, but [http://laboratorium.net/archive/2008/11/08/principles_and_recommendations_for_the_google_book#P2 this blog post] outlines some potential problems with the settlement and proposes some tweaks that would better serve the public.

= 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).

This list of recommendations will be projected, drafted, and edited dynamically throughout the session. Ideally, some technology that would allow for simultaneous editing, as opposed to the one-at-a-time restrictions of the wiki format, would be employed - it would be particularly fitting if Google Docs allowed this, but I am not certain if it does. 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.

= Discussion =

The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving. The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press. How are traditional publishers coping with these changes? What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the "Future of News" group is focusing on news providers and how they are adapting to the disruption caused by the internet (and, hopefully, harnessing the advantages the internet provides), we could extend that discussion by looking at how other groups are handling that transition (ie. the open access publishing, effects on non-news-providing publishers). Alternatively, it would be a nice parallel if we focused on self-publishing - that is, part of the disruptive process that is causing the collapse of the traditional newspaper business model (depending on how much the other group covers this, and whether we'll have enough info on that topic to make a session out of it...I guess the question here would be how to commercialize/monetize it - or are there other ideas for good questions?).

In general, I think our first step is to decide whether we want to focus more on the open access/self-publishing aspect, or the Google Book Search/"death of paper" aspect. Which topic seems most promising/interesting/etc. to you guys? (directed at Gwen and Jon) [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that decision makes sense as a first step (unless we can split the session into two parts, perhaps with two different virtual visitors? but that would definitely risk sacrificing quality for quantity in trying to cover too much). Personally, I think I am a bit more interested in the Google Book Search / death of paper topic. I kind of like that that goes in a different direction from the news people, because it would add more variety to the class as a whole and carry less risk of redundancy. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ==

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the [http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/index.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage).

Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups? Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public? Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"? What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]

We could also look at the costs/difficulties libraries (and hosts for the Research Corpus) would face under the deal, including the provided punishments, and the feasibility of implementation/problems libraries might have implementing them. To me, one part that seems particularly problematic is how Research Corpus would implement a means to restrict researchers to "non-consumptive research". [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ===

As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available. However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value. After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books. Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible? Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST) Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== The Fate of Printed Materials ===

Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete? Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest]. In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis. Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them. Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office. These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)

The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials. These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources. If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group. The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted. It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)

=== Distribution Channels ===

How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed? [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore. Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers. Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== The Publication Process ==

=== Open Access Publishing ===

Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing. What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles. Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc. And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).

This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)

Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?

Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of. Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999. It came out in paper and ink. Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot. (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.) Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text. There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms. I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.) ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process. It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

[http://openaccess.eprints.org/ Stevan Harnad] put a suitable question on the [http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ ePrints] site:

:"Why did 34,000 researchers sign a threat in 2000 to boycott their journals unless those journals agreed to provide open access to their articles - when the researchers themselves could provide open access (OA) to their own articles by self-archiving them on their own institutional websites?"

More specifically, we can look at the pros/cons of open access journals (or open access controlled/granted via publishing companies) vs. self-archiving (ie. open access by academics themselves) if this is still a hot/open debate. Also, as the first commenter pointed out on [http://pubfrontier.com/2007/12/11/putting-science-into-science-publishing/ this] blog post, "open access doesn’t mean easy access." So perhaps we could also address the question of how to make open access publications as accessible as non-OA forms.

A further thought - does ownership/copyright of published articles pass to the journal in most cases? (I think this was the case for the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, the only journal I've had direct experience with). If so, does that give the journal the power to determine where and to what degree the article could be published? That is, is this a (potential or real) barrier to self-archiving, and, if so, what can be done about it? Academics likely could not change this part of the publishing agreement unless they reach critical mass, especially for the better-known journals.

ePrints is apparently the leading software for academic self-archiving (according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprints Wikipedia] page), and Stevan Harnad (''long'' interview [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html here]) is apparently one of the academics who has been leading the charge in open access to (scientific) academic journals/publications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Suber Peter Suber] writes what is apparently "the most authoritative [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html blog]...on open access".
[[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ===

Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Wheeler Declaration])

JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment: essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence. Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail? Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Self Publication ===

One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds. The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication. I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest. Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)