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.