Previous Post
The impact of the Google Book Settlement, in whatever form it might eventually take, promised to be one of the most controversial panels at this year’s Fair and the participants, especially Prof. Roland Reuss, author of the Heidelberg Appeal, a vehement critique of the Google scanning project, did not disappoint. He denounced as “garbage of hysterical propaganda” the claims by Google that they were enhancing access, maintain that “if you want to finance production, you have to shelter the ones who produce,” not those that consume, and that moreover any student who is completely dependent on the Internet for “must be stupid.”
It didn’t begin quite as heatedly. The panel was moderated by Jens Bammel, Secretary-General of the International Publishers Association, who introduced the event noting how the controversy surrounding the Google Book Settlement (GBS), while enormously significant in itself, also betokens a much larger shift, that of the interdependence of all the players involved, both publishers and their partners. To launch the discussion, he invited Richard Sarnoff to discuss the factors motivating the Association of American Publishers’ (AAP) and Author’s Guild lawsuit against Google’s out-of-print scanning project, Google Library, and the proposed settlement. The strategy, Sarnoff indicated, was based on the following calculation. If they lost, they would lose control, not just over Google’s scanning activities but potnetially many other entities who might choose to digitally copy in-copyright books. Even, if they won, it wouldn’t affect digital copies that Google had already given to libraries, many of which are state institutions and under some laws shielded from civil liability for copyright infringement, and it would impede a universally desired goal, viz to increase availability and access to the world’s store of knowledge.
So their conclusion was to settle, in order to achieve two key objectives—choice and control. But is choice and control also what the Borsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels (comprising both publishers and retailers) want, inquired Bammel of the Borsenverein’s Christian Sprang? They want opt-in, Sprang explained, rather than opt-out, for out-of-print books. In the original GBS, he estimates that 75% of books listed in the German equivalent of the Books-in-Print database would have been characterized as out-of-print and not commercially available (a problem that has since been corrected by the parties in the GBS). The German publishers are also concerned about monopoly—they would like to see a landscape similar to the physical retail environment with thousands of retailers and publishers, rather than only two or three large players. They do recognize the access deficit that Google seeks to correct and have been moving to try to address that themselves, through Libreka, a German eBook platform that has 120,000 books in print available for search, and 13,000 available for download. Notwithstanding the practical issues, though, he re-emphasized that they were fighting for the principle that copyright be opt-in.
Santiago de la Mora, Google’s representative on the panel, explained that the Partner program is opt-in and that the Library program focuses only on out-of-print so that a great deal of what they’re doing is not at all controversial and meets the Borsenverein’s concerns. Google is “part of the solution,” he offered, and Google in fact “wants more people to get involved,” and not be the only player.
Reuss was largely unmoved. “It has always been possible for scholars to get the information,” he said, “since the 5th century.” He believes that the focus on access is inappropriate, “fetishistic,” and that the true issue with scholarship is to produce, not to access.
(He added that since the Berne Convention on intellectual property explicitly prohibits affirmative registration for copyright, he believes that the Book Rights Registry contemplated by the GBS.)
Access does matter, Sarnoff maintained. There’s been a “market failure” in Sarnoff’s opinion. An entire tranche of scholarship, almost all out-of-print works created in the entire 20th century were foreclosed from the public. IN response to Reuss’s objection that the GBS will ”cripple the publishing industry” Sarnoff noted that no publisher “is making a dime from out-of-print works.” In fact, the GBS creates revenue, for publishers and authors, where there was none before.
The Borsenverein sees truth on both positions, said Sprang, supporting the demand for accessibility, while feelings that it has to be the rightsholder’s decision. Otherwise the author will fear “if I write a book, Google will take it away from me.” Borsenverein also emphasizes the moral rights dimension—the right of an author to prohibit reproduction for expressive reasons. This is clearly one of the clearest sticking points as it is not a factor in American copyright jurisprudence. Sarnoff recognizes that it is possible that they cannot adequately represent the moral rights of all authors in the world, in this settlement.
A very robust audience discussion ensued—a particularly pertinent question from the audience concerned the problem of competition. Qualifying Sarnoff’s earlier assert that the problem of access to out-of-print works is a market failure, Sprang suggested it was as much a social failure, the refusal by society, by politicians, to make money available to accomplish the scanning activity Google is undertaking.
This clearly was not a panel in which the controversy would be resolved—Ruess’s position is quite categorical on the core question of whether what Google is doing is illegal (adding, for good measure, than an advertising-driven business model is itself “disgusting”), though there were clear signs that in additional to the ongoing discussions in the US on revising the GBS, Google and the various European publishing trade associations intend to engage in future discussions about Google’s book-related projects. So, perhaps in deference to the name of the conference room in which the panel occurred (”Entente”), some measure of detente could be seen, if not outright entente.
Tags: google book search
Top
