Today I attempted to better understand the proposed settlement between Google, authors and publishers about alleged copyright infringement in the Google Books scanning program. I'm still far from an authority; there are many legal nuances which I don't fully grasp, and the settlement agreement itself is 141 pages long.
With that said, here are the particulars of the settlment as I understand them:
- Authors of in copyright works will have to opt in, rather than opt out (thus appeasing the short-sighted Authors Guild, which for years has been looking a gift horse in the mouth by rejecting the free exposure provided by Google)
- In copyright books in the program will display 20% of content for free, with full content available for a fee. 20% free is much better than mere "snippets," which is the norm now on Google Books.
- Universities and libraries can purchase subscriptions to the complete Google Books collection, just as we do now from other vendors. (Keep in mind that much of this content came from library shelves in the first place.)
- Subscription fees from libraries and universities will ensure that authors are compensated for their work. Any proceeds from book sales generated from Google Books would be divided between publishers, authors and Google according to a defined allocation plan.
- Google will establish a non-profit registry, similar to the Copyright Clearance Center, to handle all of this. There is currently some compensation for authors, but as Siva Vaidhyanathan points out the amounts can be ridiculously small.
- In addition to subscriptions, libraries will be able to install one (1!) public terminal in which the full content of Google Books is available for free.
- Researchers will be able to perform computational research against the entire corpus of books without needing to purchase individual books.
- All of this must be approved by the Southern District of New York court to become law.
Several leading libraries have lauded the settlement. Harvard University, however, has come out strongly against it, noting concerns about the quality of the scans; potential sky high costs of library subscriptions, since there is no real competitor to Google in this market (it's a monopoly, as Helen pointed out); and doubt that this is the best way to provide wide access. I'm leaning towards Harvard's position, but do think there is some good in the settlement.
Pros:
- 20% free content in a book is much more meaningful than a few snippets. For authors, the chance for readers to get greater context will hopefully drive more sales.
- Clarification of the roles of Google, publishers and authors in what is still the uncharted digital age.
Cons:
- No resolution of Google's original fair use defense, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out. Although snippets don't make for good reading, I strongly supported Google's argument that posting a snippet was within fair use. Settling without resolving this crucial point makes sense from Google's business point of view, but it's a disservice to understanding the critical question of what constitutes fair use in the digital age. This is why it would be so much better if the Library of Congress were waging this fight rather than Google (which, despite all lofty rhetoric, exists only to make money.)
- One computer terminal at libraries for full access to Google Books. One terminal is better than none, I guess. But this is ridiculous nonetheless, as Jim C pointed out in his comment to my last post about this. There are many great reasons to venture into library buildings in the age of the Web: art exhibits; friendly people; access to physical materials that you can touch and even smell (something Google Books won't do for you). But accessing an online site like Google Books should not be one of these reasons. Google could use IP addresses to regulate how long people have free access to the complete Google Books, and block access after a certain time unless people pay a fee. As Wade Roush points out, the idea of people fighting to be first in time for that Golden Google Terminal at their local public library is unappetizing. In late 2008, it's amazing that this settlement restricts full access to online content to designated physical spaces.
- Echoing Harvard: There is great potential for high cost inflation for the full Google subscription. Libraries will have to be smart and collaborative to avoid getting caught in another "Big Deal"-esque boondoggle.
So from where I sit there are more cons than pros to this proposed settlement. We'll see how it all plays out in the real world, and I hope I am wrong in my pessimism.
Comments