tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post8405208688061899269..comments2023-09-29T08:51:56.163-07:00Comments on Coyle's InFormation: Google Giveth ... and Taketh AwayKaren Coylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-19816610326750197512008-11-22T14:41:00.000-08:002008-11-22T14:41:00.000-08:00And yes, I agree that the security provisions are ...And yes, I agree that the security provisions are very expensive and tricky to implement--especially knowing the state of most university library's IT acumen, resources, and staff, which are--not much. <BR/><BR/>If I were a library director, I'd be very careful about entering into an agreement due to the security requirements. And I'd be consulting closely with counsel to determine the extent of our liability if we were to have a 'security' breach due to incompetence, not intention. And plan for exactly how we'd handle it when such a breach was brought to our attention by the AAP. <BR/><BR/>But I'm not sure most directors realize the lack of competence and under-staffing of their own IT shops.Jonathan Rochkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05438603607671783114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-18951389816843463802008-11-22T14:38:00.000-08:002008-11-22T14:38:00.000-08:00Google and the AAP could have tried to restrict li...Google and the AAP could have tried to restrict libary's legal rights by offering them a contract that would restrict them. They could have offered libraries a contract saying "you get to keep your Google digital copies and you get a release from liability only if you agree to do X, Y, and Z", where X,Y and Z were further restrictions on what could be done with digitized books even those that did not come from Google. <BR/><BR/>After all, Google just agreed to certain restrictions as part of the settlement--with any and all digitized books they have. The settlement could have said that if libraries wanted to be involved at all--keeping Google copies and getting the 'safe harbor' release from liability, they had to agree to the same conditions _on all digitized books they had_, just like Google did. <BR/><BR/>[Of course, the settlement couldn't have superseded any existing agrements libraries had with Google, but could have done the above only if existing agreements allowed it, or said that such would take effect only after existing agreements expired. The existing agreements are secret, but it would not surprise me if they are loose enough to allow such a thing immediately.]<BR/><BR/>People make contracts to limit their actions beyond what the law already does all the time. This is the nature of a contract. They certainly legally could have tried that. They didn't. The settlement says that libraries can choose to participate only by agreeing to those limits with the books they get from Google, not with all books they digitize. Most of the vendors I am used to would have tried to reach further than that. This settlement doesn't. <BR/><BR/>Maybe if they had tried, it would have raised such an outcry that no libraries would have chosen to partner, bad press for all. Maybe they chose not to do it based on that calculation. But for whatever reason, they chose not to do it, and it's for the better. <BR/><BR/>If libraries thought when they partnered with Google they would make sure their patrons had perpetual access to the full text digitized copies for free forever--they should have tried to negotiate that in the agreement. As we know (or guess, not seeing the secret agreements), most libraries didn't even get the right to _any_ access in their agreements.Jonathan Rochkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05438603607671783114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-31560635895632599762008-11-20T07:27:00.000-08:002008-11-20T07:27:00.000-08:00Correction:The full agreement says (7.6)"Notwithst...Correction:<BR/><BR/>The full agreement says (7.6)<BR/><BR/>"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Settlement<BR/>Agreement, no Fully Participating Library, Cooperating Library or Public Domain<BR/>Library is bound by any provision of this Settlement Agreement; rather, each Fully<BR/>Participating Library’s, Cooperating Library’s and Public Domain Library’s rights and<BR/>obligations are as set forth in the applicable Library-Registry Agreement and no library<BR/>has any rights or obligations as a third-party beneficiary under this Settlement Agreement<BR/>unless and until it enters into a Library-Registry Agreement and becomes a Fully<BR/>Participating Library or a Cooperating Library."<BR/><BR/>It seems obvious, but my statement about Google and AAP "changing" the contracts that Google has with the libraries should be more like: they've agreed on a contract that Google and AAP can offer to libraries. <BR/><BR/>I still don't know what happens to the current contracts. Looking at the UC contract, the term of the contract is 6 years, and I read it that the contract can be terminated only for breach of contract. I don't know if Google is breaching the contract in this negotiation with AAP, but I don't see anything that would lead to that conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Appendix G has a list of libraries currently participating with Google, called "Approved Libraries." Section 7.1 of the full document says that these are libraries that are approved to become Fully Participating Libraries and Cooperating Libraries once they sign the relevant agreement. Presumably any library could enter into the agreement, so I'm still not sure what "approved" means. It seems more like these are target libraries that need to change their agreement with Google or face copyright challenges.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-27378836770431071252008-11-18T15:30:00.000-08:002008-11-18T15:30:00.000-08:00Jonathan, I don't know how you could say:"The agre...Jonathan, I don't know how you could say:<BR/><BR/>"The agreement _could_ have said libraries, in order to be partners, would agree to abide by those standards _with everything_. It doesn't, it limits it just to copies you get from Google. "<BR/><BR/>I don't see how AAP and Google can define the libraries' legal rights. They aren't the government; they can't create or interpret law for others. They shouldn't even be able to make deals relating to libraries -- they should have to deal with the libraries in order to make deals about library activities. I can't see any evidence that the libraries were involved in this agreement, so I don't see how they could be bound by this agreement.<BR/><BR/>You also seem to forget that Google already has contracts with the libraries that are contradicted by this agreement. So somehow Google and AAP are making a deal that changes the *contracts* that Google has with the libraries? How could that be?<BR/><BR/>You are handing over waaaay too much power to G/AAP, IMO. <BR/><BR/>And although it "says" it doesn't limit fair use rights, it actually DOES limit fair use rights. It's right there in the text: "5%" "10%" "only 5 pages." Those are all limits on fair use.<BR/><BR/>The big problem, however, is that the real liability that the libraries have is much less than the real liability that Google has. Libraries have section 108; state funded libraries already have limits on liability relating to copyright. So what I see is Google is using its liability as a for-profit to try to bully libraries, which it invited to "play," into limiting their own behavior. Google should make its deal with AAP and leave the libraries out of it. I hope the current Google libraries all refuse to participate. And I doubt if many would want to join up with Google under these conditions.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested in your reading of the security requirements. As summarized in the ARL document, they struck me as very expensive.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-17473120840247466552008-11-18T15:07:00.000-08:002008-11-18T15:07:00.000-08:00I actually have a much more favorable impression. ...I actually have a much more favorable impression. <BR/><BR/>Libraries that sign that 'pact with the devil' get a release from reliabilty, and agree to abide by certain standards _with the digitized copies they get from google_. They very signficantly do NOT give up any rights at all with any other digitized copies, that they digitize themselves, or that they get in any other way. <BR/><BR/>Now, they don't get a release from liability with those copies, fine. But, what, you want Google and the publisher's to give you a release form liability for free?<BR/><BR/>The agreement _could_ have said libraries, in order to be partners, would agree to abide by those standards _with everything_. It doesn't, it limits it just to copies you get from Google. <BR/><BR/>The agreement also _could_ have tried to get libraries, in order to become partners with all the benefits (including release from liability) to agree to limit their fair use rights or other rights to non-copyrighted material. It doesn't. It specifically says it doesn't limit fair use rights in any way (unlike another vendor we know). <BR/><BR/>So, sure, it could be better. We would have _liked_ Google to try to use it's enormous power to try (and hopefully succeed, but it's hardly guaranteed) to set new precedents giving everyone all sorts of rights. That would have been nice, but they didn't. And I'm not sure it's appropriate to think they owed that to us. <BR/><BR/>They decided to make a deal with the publishers. They decided it was in their interests. Maybe it's because I start assuming that Google will do what's in their interests (and not try to save the world) that I found myself pleasantly surprised by the agreement--it does plenty of things that are not in Google's immediate interests, it is careful to _preserve_ certain rights for libraries, even partner libraries, that didn't matter to Google, they clearly _were_ thinking about partner libarary's interests.<BR/><BR/>So Google decided to make a deal. They got a reasonably good deal. If you don't like it, you don't need to participate, or better yet, you can still participate, but go do OTHER things without google, get digital copies from other places, and the 'deal with the devil' doesn't restrict what you can do with those at all. <BR/><BR/>I think it's pretty fair. Now, if libraries who originally entered into partnerships with Google thought that they'd be getting more, well, we've talked before about how those libraries didn't really pay attention to ANY of the details, they just assumed that anything involving Google would HAVE to be good for them, which was a pretty bad way to enter into a business arrangement. If they didn't realize that there were legal uncertainties in Google's business model for digitized books, such that the landscape could change, and if they didn't insist on certain things in the Google agreement to protect those future contingencies---that's on them. <BR/><BR/>But even if they had insisted, they could have gotten no more than this. Google couldn't have promissed that publisher's would release libraries from liability. That's beyond Google's ability to promise. I guess Google could have tried to fight for the right to keep giving libraries digital copies _without_ libraries signing the agreement, and consequently of course with no release of liability for libraries. I guess we didn't get that, but I'm not sure that's reasonable to expect.Jonathan Rochkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05438603607671783114noreply@blogger.com