The Great Book Bank Robbery - Feedback

We have all read the press coverage, but what is often far more enlightening is industry and specific feedback from blogs.

Here are some articles worth a read:

From the Hathi Trust
Libraries are not leaving the future of digital books to Google. In light of Judge Chin’s rejection of the Google Books Amended Settlement Agreement, Authors Guild et al. v. Google, HathiTrust will maintain our commitment to long-term digital preservation of library collections curated by generations of librarians at great research libraries around the world.

From Jane Little at Dear Author
I saw some people indicate that they thought this was a blow to Google. I don’t perceive it to be a blow to Google in any way. In settling, the plaintiffs gave signals that they believed their copyright infringement claim was weak. Post ruling signals repeat this.

From John Bergmayer,a staff attorney at Public Knowledge and a member of the Colorado Bar.
As for orphan works, Congress needs to act. The law needs to be fixed to allow orphan works to be used in reasonable ways while respecting that they’re still under copyright. It’s great that Google and the Guild thought creatively about how to pay any orphan works rights-holders who eventually came forward, but a situation where the orphan works problem is “solved” by creating a monopoly digital library is untenable. If Google is able to exploit orphan works, then anyone else should be able to on the same terms.

From J Mullin at PaidConent.org
The best result that could come from this settlement would be renewed attention among thinkers, librarians, and Congress to the serious problem of how to create the universal library that future generations deserve. Now that those who complained about the “audacity” of this deal have won the day, we all need—not just Sergey Brin—to start thinking audaciously about how to study and preserve human culture in the digital age..

From James Grimmelmann Associate Professor at New York Law School writing at laboratorium.net
My read is that the parties are not enthusiastic about litigation. This has been a long road, they are tired, and the publishing world has moved very quickly from underneath the settlement. They will be happy to have a settlement that lets everyone claim a kind of minor victory, and to be done with the ordeal. A few of the author objectors, who would like to see Google razed to the ground and Mountain View sowed with salt, will continue to object, but most of the others will quietly shuffle away.

Finally a schematic from Library Copyright Alliance which chart the many ways forward for Google Books Settlement (PDF) Specifically it's the "March Madness" developed by Jonathan Band.

The Great Book Bank Robbery - A Close Shave?

Remember Judge Chin and the Google Book Settlement? Well it appears that the judge has finally made his ruling and his answer is NO!

We obviously now need to draw breath and understand the ruling in detail and its implications on all parties and their positions moving forward. Having fought this madness from day one, we at least are relieved that the Great Book Bank Robbery has once more been foiled. Someone asked if we were happy at the result, our answer is one of cautious relief, but frustration it took so long, divided the industry and it is unclear whether we have really learnt how we nearly sold a lot for a little.

However, the Judge does leaves the door open for yet another revision, but will all parties continue to flog this near dead horse and make more lawyers rich. Will Google capitulate and bend further?

The challenge is, that without a continued case, some will say Google will be vindicated and continue business as usual. Others will say that the mess that we have today is a direct fault of pursing a case for a settlement and accepting one that was not found wanting once. but twice.

The ‘opt in’ Judge Chin states is a logical change, but may be one that is a bitter pill for Google to swallow, as it will certainly exclude the orphans and foil an audacious and ill conceived settlement attempt by some to sell what they didn’t own.

So where do the APA and Authors Guild now stand? Will they try once more to seek international approvals? Will they try to work with the EU’s initiative? Will all parties just soldier on and conjure up a third settlement at whatever price it takes?

The Authors Guild and APA need to ask why an industry that is all about rights trading has no rights registry. They now need to wake up and recognise the close shave we have all had and bring all parties together, create a registry for all that is not tied to any deal and importantly listen and learn from this episode.

To read the ruling

To read statement from Authors Guild

To read statement from APA

AFP wire covering Google's reaction