GBS 2.0 Misses the Mark By A Mile

As we have had 10 days to review GBS 2.0, the consensus from a broad community of stakeholders is clearly concern and disappointment at Google’s decision to make only minor modifications to the proposed settlement.

Earlier this month, the Open Book Alliance released baseline requirements that the new settlement proposal must meet in order to bring about the mass digitization of books in a way that embraces openness, competition and the public good.  These requirements reflected the collective expression of concerns by the U.S. Department of Justice, authors, publishers, academics, foreign nations, consumer advocacy groups, and many others, and thus we think it appropriate to review the revised settlement within this framework.

Unfortunately, the tweaked agreement failed to meet the minimum requirements.

See the table below to see how GBS 2.0 stacks up:

Requirements	Settlement 2.0
The settlement must not grant Google an exclusive set of rights (de facto or otherwise) or result in any one entity gaining control over access to and distribution of the world’s largest digital database of books.	FAILED. Version 2 still gives Google a de facto exclusive license to “unclaimed works” (which includes millions of books, including “orphan works” and beyond), which will be the largest digital database of books in history.  While the parties have tried to avoid the objections of those like the French and German governments by excluding books published outside the U.S., U.K., Canada and Australia, Version 2 still gives Google de facto exclusivity to the millions of unclaimed books it does cover.  Nothing was done to allow any others to get the same access to those books as Google.
Authors and other rights holders must retain meaningful rights and the ability to determine the use of their works that have been scanned by Google.	FAILED. Version 2 still forces rights-holders to grant Google a very broad license to use copyrighted books to improve any and all of their commercial services, without compensation for those uses.  Google has also indicated that it will still scan and display portions of non-U.S. books that are no longer subject to the proposed deal, forcing those rightsholders to have to sue Google in federal court to have their copyrights respected.
The settlement must result in the creation of a true digital library that grants all researchers and users, commercial and non-commercial, full access that guarantees the ability to innovate on the knowledge it contains.	FAILED. Version 2 changed none of the restrictions that limit access for research purposes and prevent researchers from commercializing the results of their research in the book corpus that will be hosted by library sites.
All class members must be treated equitably.	FAILED. Version 2 continues to treat many different subclasses of rightsholders differently and unfairly.  Academic authors and other non-Authors’ Guild authors continued to be excluded from the negotiations yet are included in the proposed settlement.  Version 2 also removes many foreign language owners from the proposed settlement without any commitment from Google to stop scanning their works and to respect their copyrights.
The settlement cannot provide for competition by making others engage in future litigation.	FAILED. Version 2 still requires anyone other than Google to face the uncertainties of copyright infringement litigation if they want to try to get access to a comparable license to digital books.
Congress must retain the exclusive authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to set copyright policy.	FAILED. Version 2 still creates a “compulsory license for one company”, as the head of the U.S. Copyright Office concluded.  Such “compulsory licenses” must be enacted by Congress, not misuse of class action.
All rights holders impacted by the settlement must have a meaningful ability to receive notice, understand its terms and opt-out.	FAILED. The parties’ proposed class notice program for Version 2 does not correct the deficiencies of the original notice program.
The parties that negotiated the settlement must live under the terms to which they seek to bind others, rather than their own separately negotiated arrangements	FAILED. Version 2 still allows the members of Authors’ Guild and the AAP to pull their books from the settlement’s terms and enjoy special deals with Google, making them unfit to represent the broad class of owners who lack this negotiating power and will be stuck with these terms.

Third Party Analysis of Revised Google Books Settlement

Today, the Open Book Alliance released an extensive compilation of third party analysis of the revised Google Books Settlement. The wide-ranging consensus from a diverse chorus of voices is that the revised Settlement is barely distinguishable from the original Settlement and far from satisfying the major concerns of the Department of Justice and other objectors.

OVERALL ANALYSIS:

“So I think there are dozens and dozens of issues that were raised by objectors to the settlement agreement that are, in fact, not addressed in this revision” – Pamela Samuelson, Law professor and Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, The University of California, Berkeley, “Berkeley’s Samuelson Still Not Satisfied with Google Books Settlement, Will Urge Judge Not to Approve” (BayNewser), Nov 17, 2009

So, from my standpoint, all of the reasons I had to be concerned about the settlement agreement back in September still apply, and I’m going to be urging the judge not to endorse the settlement in its current state.” – Pamela Samuelson, Law professor and Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, The University of California, Berkeley, “Berkeley’s Samuelson Still Not Satisfied with Google Books Settlement, Will Urge Judge Not to Approve” (BayNewser), Nov 17, 2009

“I’m sure there will be much more to say about the amended settlement in the days, weeks, and months to come. My instant reaction is that it makes a number of meaningful, if modest, improvements, but leaves unaddressed the central issue that led me to worry about the settlement in the first place.” James Grimmelmann, Professor, New York Law School (Laboratorium Blog), November 14, 2009

“National Council did not see the amended settlement agreement before it became public; however we were able to review a list of proposed changes. After discussion we concluded that the Writers’ Union was unable to provide the requested endorsement before yesterday’s filing of the amended agreement and application for preliminary approval. We also concluded that we would not be able to assist the Authors Guild in finding an author to be the class representative of Canadian authors.” – The Writers Union of Canada Letter to Members

“The revised settlement proposal does nothing to fix these problems.” – David Wood, Legal Counsel, Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP), “Revised Google Book search deal ‘a massive disappointment’” (ComputerWeekly.com), November 17, 2009

Continuing Anti-trust Concerns:

“For the millions of volumes of orphan books that Google has already scanned in, they can offer those without risk of anyone coming forward and suing them for infringement,” – John Simpson, Consumer Advocate, Consumer Watchdog, “Antitrust concerns linger in Google Books deal” (CNET), November 16, 2009

“We have to have universal access to everything, just like a library. Do we want that under a single corporation’s control? It is openness, not corporate control, that propels capitalism.” Google, a onetime ally, is “a company run by lawyers, always out to see what they can get away with. We need more choice and competition than they want.” – Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive, “Ideas & Opinions” (Forbes), November 16, 2009

While foreign, non-Anglophone books had been taken out and the parties had made some tweaks here and there, the “heart of the settlement’s promise, peril, and problems has always been its treatment of unclaimed works—a category that contains the orphan works. Settlement 1.0 allowed Google to use and sell them on an opt-out basis, and Settlement 2.0 does the same. That gave Google exclusive access to a market segment that no one else can enter, and thus raised antitrust concerns.” – James Grimmelmann, Professor, New York Law School, “Most foreign language books out; showdown coming with Department of Justice about orphan works?” (Library Journal), November 11, 2009

“By carrying over the same language for the UWF, Settlement 2.0 confirms that Google will have the only game in town for the unclaimed works.” James Grimmelmann, Professor, New York Law School (Laboratorium Blog) November 14, 2009

“The DOJ all but invited Google and the plaintiffs to empower the Registry to license Google’s competitors; they declined that all-but-invitation.” – James Grimmelmann, Professor, New York Law School, “Most foreign language books out; showdown coming with Department of Justice about orphan works?” (Library Journal), November 11, 2009

“It’s a fine line. The book settlement is a perfect example of where there is clearly potential good for the public in this, but there is also potential for (Google) to have market power to dominate a particular activity on the web.” – Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America, “Google makes concessions in latest court filing” (Washington Post), November 16, 2009

“The revised agreement creates a new unclaimed works fiduciary but does so in incomplete fashion.  The UWF takes over some of the registry’s responsibilities rather than acting as a true fiduciary for orphan works holders.  Such a fiduciary would be situated to license the orphan works to third parties on a going forward basis.  That would have been an elegant solution to the competitive issues raised by the current plan to grant a license to the orphan works to Google and only to Google.  The revised settlement makes real progress on these issues only to stop short of a visible and attainable real solution.” Randal C. Picker, University of Chicago Law School, Olin Working Paper #499

“Money aside, Google will still hold an effective monopoly over scanning and marketing of orphan books.  GBS 2.0 provides for appointment of an “Unclaimed Works Fiduciary” who will have some authority to supervise the licensing of orphans.  The UWF plan looks good on paper, but James Grimmelmann has scrutinized the language and discerned that the fiduciary’s powers are either illusory (my word) or merely a continuation of the exclusive control of orphans that was part of GBS 1.0 and led to many of the antitrust challenges. “ – Kenneth Crews, Director of the Copyright Advisory Office, Columbia University, “GBS 2.0: The New Google Books (Proposed) Settlement” (www.copyright.columbia.edu), November 17, 2009

“ICOMP, like many others, objected to the original settlement proposal because it would have granted Google de facto exclusive rights for the digital distribution of millions of orphan works as well as many other books. It also would have given Google a virtual monopoly over the ability to search books online, further strengthening its dominant position in online search and search advertising.” – David Wood, Legal Counsel, Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP), “Revised Google Book search deal ‘a massive disappointment’” (ComputerWeekly.com), November 17, 2009

FATE OF UNCLAIMED/Orphan Works:

“Nobody should get a license to orphans without congressional action. This is a legislative matter — you shouldn’t use a class action for that.” – Pamela Samuelson, Law professor and Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, The University of California, Berkeley, “The Google-Books Settlement: A Lawsuit Ripe for . . . Congress?” (WSJ: Law Blog), November 17, 2009

“Given that everyone is so positive that you CAN find rights holders for most of these unclaimed works, why not go out and find them first, then ask if they want to be included. Surely the settlement can generate enough money from books with known authors to fund that without having to include these books at the outset?” – Danny Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief, Search Engine Land, “Antitrust concerns linger in Google Books deal” (CNET), November 16, 2009

“The Registry is trying to lay claim and charge for, monetize, works that have never been claimed and this is what causes the whole thing to be broken,” – Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive, “Antitrust concerns linger in Google Books deal” (CNET), November 16, 2009

“Substantively, the new settlement bears a great resemblance to the old one. There’s a large number of changes (which are conveniently marked up in a downloadable file available from the settlement site here), but while they chip away at some of the rough edges of the earlier proposed settlement, the core of our antitrust concerns seems to remain.

That main concern is that Google should not be the sole entity able to license the display of orphan and unclaimed works. Nothing in the new settlement agreement seems to change that dynamic.” – Sherwin Siy, Public Knowledge, “The New Google Book Settlement: First Impressions on Orphan Works” (publicknowledge.org), November 17, 2009

Copyright Infringement CONCERNS:

“The proposed revised settlement of the Google Books copyright infringement lawsuit fails to address the concerns of several writers’ organizations and many American writers, and allows Google to get away with violating writers’ constitutionally protected rights. While the new proposal might appear to answer some objections, it still offers American writers a pittance for their already-scanned books, still requires writers to ‘opt out’ of the Google Books program, and still interferes with author-publisher contractual relationships,”.- Larry Goldbetter, President, National Writers Union, “Revised Google Deal Still Disses Writers NWU Says” (nwu.org), November 16, 2009

“It’s a very complex issue but I’m against this because I feel that copyright laws have stood us in good stead for a long time. I don’t understand why we are allowing a really big company to overturn them without discussion. I think it’s fascinating though. We are at a complete change. If a Kindle becomes a thing of beauty like an iPhone we may have to rethink.” – Anthony Cheetham, Director, Atlantic Books, UK, “Google opens new chapter as millions of books go into its online library” (The Times), November 17, 2009

COMPLETE LACK OF Privacy:

“Google is poised to radically expand its book service, monitoring the digital books you search, the pages you read, how long you spend on various pages, and even what you write down in the margins. Google could then combine your reading habits with other information it has about you from other Google services, creating a massive “digital dossier” about you, your interests, and your concerns. With numerous reports of government efforts to compel online and offline booksellers to turn over records about readers, the time is now for Google to pledge to protect reader privacy.” – Cindy Cohn, Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Don’t Let Google Close the Book on Reader Privacy” (Electronic Frontier Foundation), November 14, 2009

ABUSE OF Class Action PROCESS:

“Suppose, on the other hand, that Congress does act, blesses the Registry, and creates a statutory licensing system operated by the UWF. That would be a reasonable outcome. It would create legitimate, competitive, compensated access to orphan books. But if the whole thing depends on Congress, why do we need the class action?” – James Grimmelmann, Professor, New York Law School (Laboratorium Blog), November 14, 2009

CONTINUING Foreign COMPLAINTS:

The proposals “do not mark any progress on the essential question of non-English language works pirated by Google. The SNE is maintaining its position by asking Google to respect the essential principle of prior consent by authors and publishers for use of their works.” – SNE French Publishers Association, (AFP), November 19, 2009

“Just because they are taken out of the agreement doesn’t mean Google will stop scanning their books. Google has already scanned many of their books.” – Pamela Samuelson, Law professor and Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, The University of California, Berkeley, “Antitrust concerns linger in Google Books deal” (CNET), November 16, 2009

“Although some European works will technically now fall outside the scope of the settlement, Google appears intent to continue copying and engaging in “snippet” display of copyrighted European works through its existing arrangements with American libraries. To say the least, the revised settlement is a massive disappointment.” – David Wood, Legal Counsel, Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP), “Revised Google Book search deal ‘a massive disappointment’” (ComputerWeekly.com), November 17, 2009

“We should be extremely cautious about ceding rights to any organisation in this sort of default manner.” – Anthony Cheetham, Director, Atlantic Books, UK, “Google opens new chapter as millions of books go into its online library” (The Times), November 17, 2009

“It is clear that Google’s pricing in the US will also have a strong influence on the pricing of any similar digital library project that emerges in Europe.” – David Wood, Legal Counsel, Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP), “Revised Google Book search deal ‘a massive disappointment’” (ComputerWeekly.com), November 17, 2009

Insider Deals for Publishers? Where there’s smoke…

It is easy to see why the Association of American Publishers (AAP) is so pleased with Settlement 2.0 – it preserved a little-noticed provision that allows it to strike a better deal.  Section 17.9 of Google Books Settlement 2.0 entitled, “Separate Agreements with Amended Settlement Class Members” specifically enables the largest publishers to back out of the settlement provisions by negotiating their own separate agreements.

Will the largest publishers — empowered by specific language in the settlement — actually agree on a settlement that limits the rights of other groups while at the same time strike side deals that provide them with better terms than they are negotiating on behalf of the class?

For some time, many have been saying that the five publishing houses that are original plaintiffs in the lawsuit already have a private agreement with Google.  Some say they have already done so but no one really knows for sure.  In any case, it’s certainly unseemly for the publishers to be saddling an entire class of stakeholders with a deal that they don’t have to abide by themselves.  It is time that the issues come to light and the publishers let us know whether the accusations are true or false.

However, the rumblings are coming from some significant sources.

The Department of Justice notes in its brief on the proposed settlement that the parties have already acknowledged their intent to stick with separately negotiated agreements:

“It is noteworthy that the parties have indicated their belief that the largest publisher plaintiffs are likely to choose to negotiate their own separate agreements with Google (i.e., they will not opt in to the future provisions of the settlement), while benefitting from the out-of-print works that will be exploited by Google due to the effect of the opt-out requirement for those works.”

In August, heavyweight agency William Morris Endeavor wrote a letter to its literary clients recommending they opt-out of the settlement with Google, citing a lack of participation by publishers in the deal as part of their reasoning:

“It appears that most major publishers will not allow their “out of print” books to be sold through the Settlement program either.”

Everyone is free to make a business deal unilaterally but NOT when they negotiating other groups’ rights away at the same time. The question is simple. Will the American Association of Publishers commit to adhering to the terms they are negotiating for the rest of the world, or do they have better private deals with Google already in place?

Google Settlement Revision Post-Mortem

In the wake of Friday’s late night release, we’ve had an opportunity to review the revised settlement.  And, even though Google warned us that little would change from the first widely opposed settlement, we still found the rehash anti-climactic.

At its heart, this is the same flawed agreement with the same terminal shortcomings as before.  While we look forward to a continued dissection of the settlement over the coming days, the following core elements render it DOA:

• The settlement still allows Google to purchase a monopoly on digital books. For less than 3 percent of the cash it took home in 2008, the world’s largest advertiser gets the exclusive right to millions of books and immunity from future litigation.  It will be impossible for any competitor to receive the same deal.

• Authors must still opt-out of the agreement even if they have not given their consent to be included in the deal. This compulsory inclusion is bad for authors and consumers.

• Google’s claims regarding the Unclaimed Works Fiduciary are misleading and simply false. The UWF will NOT be able to license works to competitors since such a license is not permitted under the law. Only Congress has the power to give these rights; Google is seeking an exclusive “end run” around Congress’ power to set copyright law.

• Consumer privacy has NOT been protected or improved. ACLU and EFF experts agree that the deal lacks basic safeguards consumers would expect from any public library.

• Academic libraries and independent researchers are still at the mercy of pricing from Google’s one stop book shop. This is a for-profit play by a profit maximizing company.  Do we really want the card catalogue of the future running advertising?

• Instead of negotiating with stakeholders, Google cuts them out. For all the talk of building a new Library of Alexandria, when foreign language publishers asked Google hard questions the response wasn’t flexibility or concessions.  Instead, the squeaky wheel was amputated.   Despite this, international books already scanned by Google will remain in the database where they can be monetized.

In releasing the warmed over settlement, Google stated their regret at being forced to make revisions to the original agreement but lamented that there was simply no other way for a deal to be done.  Fortunately for the public and competitors there is another way.

Mandates via the courts will clearly not deliver the balanced agreement needed to satisfy stakeholders.  Google must give up their go-it-alone mentality and recognize that the path to success will come from competition and respect for broader public interest.

Watch this space for more detailed analysis in the days ahead.

Questions Abound for Google but Will There Be Answers?

The Google Books Settlement (GBS) 2.0 appears to be conjuring up the same questions and concerns plagued by the first settlement:

1.   How does this not constitute a monopoly?

2.   How does this not skirt copyright laws?

3.   How does this provide benefit to the general public?

Public interest groups and non-profits across the globe are identifying the inherent flaws in a settlement focused on preserving exorbitant profits for Google.

Pamela Samuelson, a law professor and director of the University of California at Berkeley Center for Law told the Bay Newser, “I think there are dozens and dozens of issues that were raised by objectors to the [first] settlement agreement that are, in fact, not addressed in this revision….So, from my standpoint, all of the reasons I had to be concerned about the settlement agreement back in September still apply, and I’m going to be urging the judge not to endorse the settlement in its current state.”

In an article featured in the Recorder, Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge called into question Google’s assertion’s that the newly created “independent fiduciary” would have the ability to license books to third parties, “It is still questionable under the terms of the settlement and under existing law whether that fiduciary would be able to license works to third parties,” said Siy. “That still leaves Google with the sole ability to digitize and make available orphan works.”

The anti-competitive nature of the settlement has raised multiple eyebrows including Kenneth Crews of the Columbia University Copyright Advisory Office. Crews said the negatives of GBS 2.0 are inescapable and “money aside, Google will still hold an effective monopoly over scanning and marketing of orphan books.”

Yet, criticism is going beyond words and leading to significant action.  Today, The Writer’s Union of Canada (TWUC) formerly rejected the settlement citing major concerns for public libraries and non-profit higher education institutions. The TWUC said that the settlement would erode copyright protections for book access at Canadian libraries.

As the 700+ page settlement continues to be analyzed and reviewed, it remains to be seen if Google can finally provide satisfactory answers to the fundamental questions that have remained since the first settlement.

Why is Google Hiding from Public View?

If the Google Books Settlement truly is in the public’s best interest, Google has a funny way of showing it.  First, Google released the settlement’s details at the witching hour of midnight on Friday.  Then last night, Google refused to address the facts behind the book settlement on a widely respected national television news program.

Yesterday, PBS’ The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer invited Open Book Alliance co-founder Gary Reback and Google Books Engineering Director Dan Clancy to discuss Google’s controversial attempt to get the courts to bless the modestly revised Google Books Settlement.  That didn’t happen and TechCrunch has the story.

Google continues to say they would like to have an open discussion on the merits of their revised settlement.  However, the only discussions about the settlement seem to be occurring behind the closed doors of the company’s Mountain View, Calif. campus.

What is keeping Google from having the open discussion they keep talking about?

Proposed Changes Fail to Address Fundamental Flaws, OBA Co-Chair Says

Open Book Alliance Co-Chair Gary Reback has issued a formal statement in response to Friday’s revised Google Books Settlement:

“The proposed changes fail to address this deal’s fundamental flaws.  Despite Google’s effort to spin this deal, it does nothing to promote competition nor does it reform Google’s exclusive access and monopoly hold on this digital database of books.  Their proposed “unclaimed works fiduciary” will have zero authority to promote competition or expand access.  It is a cynical diversion away from the parties’ continued reliance on the discredited argument that competitors can obtain access through the very means Google did – getting sued for copyright infringement and abusing the class action process.  This deal remains rife with anti-trust, class action and copyright violations.”

The Monopoly Continues

When it comes to the Google Books settlement, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The latest revision still provides Google with the power to squelch competitors and own orphan works. Already, many of have questioned whether the Department of Justice will be comfortable with the minimal concessions announced on Friday.

Google chose to release its amended settlement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers at nearly midnight eastern time on Friday. But, it didn’t matter whether the settlement was announced at 2pm or 2am, the facts are still the same. Google is positioning itself to solely own the digital rights of nearly every book copyrighted under U.S. law.

There is no question that a 700+ page settlement is going to contain some changes. However, the focus needs to remain on the lack of changes that address the fundamental flaws of the original settlement. Despite the well-crafted blog and backgrounders released by Google in concert with settlement, the revised settlement does not benefit the public at-large and breaks copyright laws.

The National Writers Union said that “Google scanned more than 10 million books without permission of the copyright owners. The Goliath of advertising-supported search – which enjoyed a net income of more than $4.5 billion last year – still wants to pay writers as little as $60 per book to forgive the infringement and to cede control over future exploitation of their works.”

And, it appears the money making machine will continue to work overtime if the settlement is approved. We’ve heard Google boast about the major changes to how it will deal with orphan works and the creation of an Unclaimed Works Fiduciary to set terms on their behalf. But, as New York Law School Professor James Grimmelman points out, “Settlement 2.0 confirms that Google will have the only game in town for the unclaimed works.”

The OBA looks forward to evolving the conversation in days and upcoming weeks away from “spin”  to substance, participating in a thorough and open public review of what the ramifications of the latest amended settlement really are.

Is the Google Books Settlement Worth the Wait?

Today, Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers released their revised book settlement proposal in an attempt to fix the deeply flawed legal agreement.
Open Book Alliance co-chair Peter Brantley said, “Our initial review of the new proposal tells us that Google and its partners are performing a sleight of hand; fundamentally, this settlement remains a set-piece designed to serve the private commercial interests of Google and its partners.  None of the proposed changes appear to address the fundamental flaws illuminated by the Department of Justice and other critics that impact public interest.  By performing surgical nip and tuck, Google, the AAP, and the AG are attempting to distract people from their continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution; usurp Congress’s role in setting copyright policy; lock writers into their unsought registry, stripping them of their individual contract rights; put library budgets and patron privacy at risk; and establish a dangerous precedent by abusing the class action process.”

The digitization of books has the potential to unlock huge volumes of our shared cultural knowledge, and the Open Book Alliance supports efforts to make books searchable, readable, and downloadable. But there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish this goal. The right path embraces openness, competition, and the public good. Last week, the Open Book Alliance issued a set of requirements that the new settlement proposal must adhere to in order be true to these principles. Most critically, the settlement proposal must not grant Google an exclusive set of rights (de facto or otherwise) or result in any one entity gaining control over access to and distribution of the world’s largest digital database of books.  It is clear that Google has failed to meet these requirements.

###

Revised Settlement Deadline Postponed; Question Remains The Same

We’ve now received word that Google and its partners have asked Judge Chin for another extension to the deadline for delivery of a revised settlement agreement. They have requested until Friday, November 13 to submit a new proposal to the Court, and their request has been granted.

Whether the Settlement is submitted today, later this week, or at some other point in the future, the question remains the same — will Google and its partners seriously address the numerous fundamental flaws in the settlement found by the DoJ and others? The Open Book Alliance eagerly awaits the answer to the question. Until then, just like all concerned parties, we can’t venture a guess, given the secrecy with which the discussions between the settlement participants have taken place.

Meanwhile, our position on the settlement has not changed — a revised proposal that does not meet or exceed certain requirements will threaten the rights of all, the livelihoods of many, and the rule of law. If “Settlement 2.0” repeats the same fundamental flaws, and continues to allow one company exclusive control over access to and distribution of the digital database of books, it should meet the same fate as the original settlement proposal.