Librarians’ Concerns Linger

On Tuesday, three national library associations sent a letter to the Department of Justice expressing their concern over Google’s pricing power should the GBS be approved.

In their opinion, entrusting a single entity with the exclusive rights to digitized books would, “make libraries particularly vulnerable to profit maximizing pricing.”

The group had previously expressed these concerns in a July 2009 letter, writing:

In the absence of competition for the services it will enable, the settlement could compromise fundamental library values such as equity of access to information, patron privacy, and intellectual freedom.

Tuesday’s letter reminds the DOJ that the revised settlement in no way solved this critical flaw.

Beyond the lack of competition codified by the GBS, the American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries and Association of Research Libraries continue to decry a lack of academic representatives on the proposed book registry.

Not surprisingly, they find it unacceptable that the folks who contribute “most of the books Google will scan and display” don’t get a say in overseeing this invaluable collection.

Google Book Settlement Lacks Poetic Justice

U.K. author Gillian Spraggs has taken the lead in sounding alarm bells for colleagues that may not be aware they’ll be ensnared in the GBS.  Earlier today, Spraggs released a paper titled, “The Google Book Settlement: a survival aid for UK authors.”

The author (a poet herself) has particular concern for the authors of shorter works:

I believe that short story writers, poets and essayists who have had work published in edited anthologies and multi-author collections should read the following summary with special attention. Under the settlement the treatment of such works (’inserts’, as they are called in the agreement) is different in crucial respects from the treatment of books. It is not, for instance, possible for the author to arrange for their removal from Google’s database. To the best of my knowledge, this information has not been well publicized within the UK.

Spraggs’ piece also illuminates the confusing terms that may be forced upon authors.  On the topic of opting-out, Spraggs writes:

It should be noted that when it first came under fire over its ‘Library Project’ (i.e. for digitizing books without permission), [Google] promised then that it would not digitize books if the rights-holders specifically requested they refrain. However, there have since been complaints that these requests have not always been honored [more information].

Of course, Professor Spraggs is not the only voice from across the Atlantic with significant questions about the proposed GBS.  The New York Times wrote today that President Nicolas Sarkozy has pledged over a billion dollars for a program to digitize and house books in the French National Library.

The move is a direct response to opposition in France about handing exclusive book rights to a single advertising company like Google.

Google and the M Word

Is Google a monopoly? Scott Cleland thinks so.  At a Monday presentation hosted by the Federalist Society, the tech consultant laid out his case for why Google is already acting in a monopolistic fashion.

The presentation – which can be found here in its entirety – covers four main points that brand a wide range of Google activities with the M word:

1. Google is a monopoly.
2. Google is a digital information distribution bottleneck.
3. Google’s antitrust defense is specious.
4. Google’s behavior is broadly predatory and anti-competitive.

Interestingly, Cleland includes the GBS in his “Top Ten List of Google’s Anti-competitive Behavior.” Specifically, he writes:

In the pending Book Settlement, Google seeks to exclude competitors from search access of the ill-gotten orphan works database, information the DOJ told the court that competitors need access to in order to compete.

Of course, Cleland isn’t the first to question if Google has become a monopoly. He is part of a growing chorus that is beginning to ask just how much power is too much.

French President Sarkozy Opposes GBS 2.0

International opposition to Google Books Settlement 2.0 continues to grow.  Most recently, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he’ll block Google from digitizing “France’s heritage.”  According to a BusinessWeek story, Sarkozy suggested that a share of a multi-billion Euro-economic investment plan could be used to digitize French books.

GBS 2.0 foes in France also include Editions du Seuil, a publisher that says Google Books violated national copyright laws.  Editions du Seuil challenged Google in a French court in September and awaits a judge’s decision on Dec. 18.  Google has scanned over 100,000 French works still protected by copyright, according to the Syndicat National de l’Edition, one of the two trade groups that have joined Editions du Seuil’s complaint

European Union Bolsters Opposition To Settlement 2.0

Negative international reaction to Google Books Settlement 2.0 continues to grow as European Union ministers recently agreed to move forward with plans to develop an alternative to Google Books.

French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterand said, “”It’s not up to this or that private group to decide policy on an issue as important as the digitization of our global heritage. I’m not going to leave this issue up to simple laissez-faire.”

European critics have protested Google’s plans because of anti-trust, privacy and copyright concerns.

Opposition to Settlement 2.0 will continue to mount over the next several weeks leading up to the January 28 deadline for public comment.