Google and ‘That’ Settlement
I don’t buy into the bleating that Google’s book search settlement is wholly good for humanity, nor do I think the opposing view — that it will kill the publishing industry — holds much merit. I do, however, think the world is better off with some kind of total, digitised database of books (or anything else, in fact), and that the initial painful change this kind of database would bring to the industry will be worthwhile.
But, I have strong reservations regarding the antitrust implications and lack of transparency. James Grimmelmann sums it up neatly, suggesting that the settlement should impose the following requirements on Google and/or the new rights Registry:
Make the public goods generated by the project truly public
Require accountability and transparency
- R10: Require that Google’s database of in-print/out-of-print information be made public.
- R11: Require that the Registry’s database of copyright owner information be made public.
- R12: Require the use of standard APIs, open data formats, and (for metadata) unrestricted access.
- R13: Require that Google inform the public when it excludes a book for editorial reasons.
- R14: Tighten up the definition of “non-editorial reasons” for excluding a book.
- R15: Allow any institution ready, willing, and able to participate in scanning books to do so.
This is an excellent set of requirements that would prohibit Google from hiding its currently vague and non-specific methodology for determining whether a book is out-of-print, and it would give publishers and authors a way to strike competitive deals via the Registry.
