INLS 490-121: Collaborative Writing Exercise/Libraries and the Google Books settlement

From Pomerantz

Jump to: navigation, search

← Return to Collaborative Writing Exercise

On the topic of the Google Books project (not to be confused with The Google Book), Google states that "The Library Project's aim is simple: make it easier for people to find relevant books – specifically, books they wouldn't find any other way such as those that are out of print – while carefully respecting authors' and publishers' copyrights. Our ultimate goal is to work with publishers and libraries to create a comprehensive, searchable, virtual card catalog of all books in all languages that helps users discover new books and publishers discover new readers."[1] The project may be subdivided into three sub-projects: the mass digitization of books, the distribution of access to these books, and the establishment, still in progress, of legal precedent with serious implications for publishing, libraries, and book digitization projects generally.

Contents

Google's book digitization

Google, like other book digitization projects, employs a specially-design scanner that scans pages of a book without damaging its spine. Approximately 8 million books have been scanned so far.

Google's partners in this project (that is, the libraries that are allowing Google to scan their holdings) include:

Google's digital book distribution

Upon scanning a book, Google will keep a digital copy and give one to the participating libraries. Each library will be given a single dedicated terminal for its patrons to view those scanned books which are held in its collection. Library members may also view the books from home using account information.

As far as public viewing goes, books that are fully in the public domain will be viewable in full to anyone with an internet connection. Books that are within copyright fall into three categories:

  • Those whose authors and/or publishers have given explicit permission for full public viewing.
  • Those whose authors and/or publishers have given explicit permission for partial public viewing, possibly including title page, table of contents, and a pre-determined number of snippets.
  • Those whose authors and/or publishers have not given permission; these will only be viewable to the public as a text-only library catalog-style record, with the possible addition of a cover image.

"Orphan works", books that are in copyright but out of print, will fall into one of these three categories as well.

The Google Books suit of 2005

The prosecution's position

The prosecution, whose members are the Authors Guild of America and the Association of American Publishers, cited massive copyright infringment by way of copying large amounts of books and storing this data in their own databases, although they are not making any copyrighted material to the public as yet. (More, someone? Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the legal system?)

Google's position

Google countered with a fair use defense, claiming that, in a full-text searcahble world, their storage of this information is analogous to information stored in library catalog. [2] (More?)

Settlement proceedings

...

Implications

  • Google: Settlement would give Google the go-ahead to give access to scanned works. Although they would pay publishers for copyrighted works, they would make a very large sum of money from ad revenue on the websites that display books.
  • Writers: Although Google Books is another market for distribution of works (a clear benefit), whether a given author will receive compensation is unclear. Authors of orphan works, in particular, stand to lose money if they have not stepped forward to claim copyright ownership. There is also some debate as to whether the distribution of pay is fairly established.
  • Publishers: Publishers stand to benefit a great deal more than writers, as they will receive money for the distribution of orphan works whether or not an author (or his/her estate) has come forward to claim ownership of that work's copyright.
  • Libraries: Settlement would allow these libraries Google-affiliated efforts to come to fruition. Skeptics point out that there is nothing stopping Google from using "cocaine pricing"[3] (drastically inflating the cost for subscription to the service), much like scholarly journal databases have done through the years.
  • Other digitization projects: The settlement establishes a debatably monopolistic system in which no other organization may be offered a better deal than Google would receive, barring almost everyone else (and, notably, nonprofit projects like Brewster Kahle's Open Book project) from a fair chance at competition. Also, a settlement may give the impression that Google's fair use defense was not acceptable, potentially damaging any other book digitization project's prospects for using such a defense in the event of a suit.
  • Ordinary folks: A settlement means public access to the scanned materials, assuming membership at a participating library. Although they may not have to pay the bill directly, members of the public would likely be required to pay more, by way of taxes and possible exclusive Google Books collection membership fees, if/when Google decides to increase the prices.

(More...)

New York Times coverage

The New York Times has covered this story closely; a selection of these stories is available below (newest to oldest):