ITI Bloggers June 17th, 2009
The SLA staff has been active in discussions with Google about the proposed Google Book Settlement, which awaits approval by a U.S. District Court. As Doug Newcomb wrote in the SLA Public Policy Connection blog, “Along with excitement about the good that could arise from the settlement (see Google Book Search Will Expand Access), there are also fears that it could compromise basic library values such as equal access to information, privacy, and intellectual freedom.” In May, Derek Slater, Policy Analyst with Google, met with staff at SLA headquarters to discuss and address various concerns that have been voiced by SLA members over the settlement. Following the meeting, Slater posted a long comment on the blog.
As a result of the meeting, Google agreed to have Dan Clancy, Engineering Director, Google Book Search, speak at SLA’s Public Policy Update on Tuesday morning. Given the high interest in the topic in other forums, I expected an overflow crowd. However, given the nature of the conference, with numerous simultaneous sessions, business meetings, etc., the attendance was relatively small. I counted only about 40 folks in attendance. And, the discussion was relatively tame and non-controversial. Most of the time, Clancy explained the details of the settlement-the “snippet view,” rightsholders’ participation, the Books Rights Registry, and the three kinds of access (online consumer access to purchase, institutional access by subscription, and one public access terminal per public library). He also anticipated some questions, such as, “what happens if Google goes away?” Partner libraries, such as Michigan, Stamford, University of Texas, etc., will protect the public’s interest and make books available, he said.
While librarians did ask about privacy (which isn’t discussed in the settlement-Clancy says it needs to be between Google and users), trust issues (Google is working on its relationships), and orphan works, Clancy brought up pricing as a question that wasn’t asked. He says it must satisfy two objectives: it must gain revenue for the rightsholders and the books “have to be priced for broad distribution.” He called it a “huge game changer” and an “equalizer.” He says Google hopes that this expanded access will encourage people to actually go to the primary source.
On the issue of Google monopolizing access to orphan works under the agreement, Clancy claims that any organization that wants to get involved can. “Google tries to foster open competition. Having multiple players is good.” However, this could be the real sticking point in the settlement moving along for approval. Just the week before SLA, word came that the Justice Department has sent requests, called civil investigative demands (CID), to the various parties involved in the agreement, including Google, the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild and individual publishers. It looks like the department is serious about the antitrust implications.
Paula J. Hane
News Bureau Chief, ITI
