[Libs-Or] Fwd: [alacoun] Is Google Waging a Public Relations Campaign on Libraries?

[Diedre Conkling]

I think some of you will find this interesting and useful.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Emily Sheketoff <esheketoff at alawash.org>
Date: Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Subject: [alacoun] Is Google Waging a Public Relations Campaign on
Libraries?
To: alacoun at ala.org
Cc: alacol2 at ala.org


 Washington Office has posted this on our District Dispatch
*Is Google Waging a Public Relations Campaign on Libraries?
<http://www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/?p=2874>*

May 14th, 2009

Recently, Google representatives have initiated contact with members of the
library community to explain, from their perspective, the proposed Google
Book Search settlement agreement that was recently reached among Google, the
Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the Authors Guild.
Specifically, Google is reaching out to library leaders, likely in response
to an increase in interest in the community and the
press<http://wo.ala.org/gbs/articles-blog-posts-links/>about the
concerns libraries have raised in response to the proposed private
settlement agreement.

You will recall that the American Library Association (ALA), the Association
of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research
Libraries (ARL) filed
comments<http://wo.ala.org/gbs/2009/05/04/library-associations-ask-judge-to-assert-vigorous-oversight-of-proposed-google-book-search-settlement/>on
May 4, 2009, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York for the judge to consider in his ruling on the proposed
settlement.  In that filing, the library associations asked the judge to
exercise vigorous oversight of the interpretation and implementation of the
settlement to ensure the broadest possible benefits from the services the
settlement enables.  The associations also asserted that although the
proposed settlement has the potential to provide public access to millions
of books, many of the features of the settlement, including the absence of
competition for the new services, could compromise fundamental library
values including equity of access to information, patron privacy and
intellectual freedom.

In response to questions we are receiving from our members about these
potential “one-on-one” meetings with Google engineers and analysts who are
developing Google Book Search and who will implement the agreement (if
approved by the court), we are sharing some suggested questions to ask,
should you decide to meet.

On the topic of equitable access to information, and more specifically
pricing, the proposed settlement allows for differential pricing for
different categories of institutions for subscriptions, why?  The settlement
states institutional subscription pricing will be “based on comparable
products and services.” Since no other comparable product or service
currently exists, how will Google keep from disparities in access to its
product if subscription prices are, or become, too expensive?  Finally, the
Book Rights Registry established by the proposed settlement (and comprised
of equal numbers of representatives for the authors and publishers), has
been granted the oversight to settle disputes over pricing.  What, if any,
mechanism would be available to libraries (as primary customers of the
product), and individual consumers to dispute pricing?

With respect to patron privacy — what assurances, aside from a verbal
commitment, does the library community, library patrons and the public
interest have that their privacy rights will be protected?  The proposed
settlement itself is silent on the topic of patron privacy rights, why?
Were the three private entities unable to reach agreement, in their closed
deliberations, on a privacy policy?

Finally, with regard to intellectual freedom, the proposed settlement allows
Google to omit up to 15% of in-copyright, not commercially available books
it has scanned from libraries.  What criteria will Google use to determine
which books are omitted from the product?  Will Google identify the books
omitted and provide any explanation as to why?  How will Google keep from
engaging in censorship as it is conceivable and even likely that both
domestic and international pressure will be exerted upon them to censor
books?

Of course, there are many other questions about the proposed settlement that
we encourage you to discuss with your colleagues not only as you consider
meeting with the Google representatives, but also decide whether you
purchase a subscription to the product, should it become available in the
future.  Over the past several months, since the proposed settlement
agreement was announced, the library community has engaged in a number of
activities to foster awareness and understanding of the settlement and its
potential implications, and provide venues for discussion and questions from
the community.  In addition, the ALA Washington Office has created an
informational website <http://wo.ala.org/gbs/> for the library community on
the proposed Google Book Search settlement.

Moving forward, it is important to remember that this proposed settlement
that broadly outlines the terms and conditions Google, the AAP and the
Authors Guild reached during private negotiations is not yet final.
Recently, the judge presiding over the case extended the deadline for filing
comments to the court by four months to September 4, 2009, and scheduled a
final fairness hearing for October 7, 2009.  Although the filing deadline
was extended, the library associations moved forward with filing on May 4
(within the original deadline of May 7) to help inform the library community
and the public as they consider this important and complex matter.

Contact: Corey Williams
Associate Director
ALA Washington Office
(202) 628-8410
cwilliams at alawash.org







-- 
Diedre Conkling
diedre08 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20090514/2ee60272/attachment.html>