[kcoyle.blogspot.com] />

Monday, November 03, 2021
Google/AAP settlement
This Google/AAP settlement has hit my brain like a steel ball in a pinball machine, careening around and setting off bells and lights in all directions. In other words, where do I start?

Reading the FAQ (not the full 140+ page document), it seems to go like this:

Google makes a copy of a book.
Google lets people search on words in the book.
Google lets people pay to see the book, perhaps buy the book, with some money going to the rights holder.
Google manages all of this with a registry of rights.

Now, replace the word "Google" above with "Kinko's."

Next, replace the word "Google" above with "A library."

TILT! If Google is allowed to do this, shouldn't anyone be allowed to do it? Is Jeff Bezos kicking himself right now for playing by the rules? Did Google win by going ahead and doing what no one else dared to do? Can they, like Microsoft, flaunt the law because they can buy their way out of any legal pickle?


Ping! Next thought: we already have vendors of e-books who provide this service for libraries. They serve up digital, encoded versions of the books, not scans of pages. These digital books often have some very useful features, such as allowing the user to make notes, copy quotes of a certain length, create bookmarks, etc. The current Google Books offering is very feature poor. Also, because it is based on scans, there is no flowing of pages to fit the screen. The OCR is too poor to be useful to the sight-impaired. And if they sell books, what will the format be?


TILT! Will it even be legal for a publicly-funded library to provide Google books if they aren't ADA compliant?


Ping! This one I have to quote:

"Public libraries are eligible to receive one free Public Access Service license for a computer located on-site at each of their library buildings in the United States. Public libraries will also be able to purchase a subscription which would allow them to offer access on additional terminals within the library building and would eliminate the requirement of a per page printing fee. Higher education institutions will also be eligible to receive free Public Access Service licenses for on-site computers, the exact number of which will depend on the number of students enrolled."



TILT! Were any public libraries asked about this? Does anyone have an idea of what it will cost them to 1) manage this limited access and pay-per-page printing 2) obtain more licenses when demand rises? Remember when public libraries only had one machine hooked up to the Internet? Is this the free taste that leads to the Google Books habit?


Ping! The e-book vendors only provide books where they have an agreement with the publishers, thus no orphan works are included. So, will Google's niche mainly consist of providing access to orphan works? Or will the current e-book vendors be forced out of the market because Google's total base is larger, even though the product may be inferior?


Ping! We already have a licensor of rights, the Copyright Clearance Center, and it was founded with the support of the very folks (the AAP) who have now agreed to create another organization, funded initially by Google and responding only to the licensing of Google-held content.


TILT! Google books gets its own licensing service, its own storefront... can anyone compete with that? And what happens to anything that Google doesn't have?


Ping! It looks like Google will collect fees on all books that are not in the public domain. This means that users will pay to view orphan works, even though a vast number of them are actually in the public domain. Unclaimed fees will go to pay for the licensing service. Thus, users will be paying for the service itself, and will be paying to view books they should be able to access freely and for free.


Ping! We have a copyright office run by the US government. I'm beginning to wonder what that Copyright Office does, however, since we now have two non-profit organizations in the business of managing rights, plus others getting into the game, such as OCLC with its rights assessment registry, and folks like Creative Commons. Shouldn't the Copyright Office be the go-to place to find out who owns the rights to a work? Shouldn't we be scanning the documents held by the Copyright Office that tell us who has rights? (Note: the famed renewal database is actually a scan of the INDEX to the copyright renewal documents, not the full information about renewal.) Even if we had access to every copyright registration document in the Copyright Office, would we know who owns various rights? I think not. And how much of this will change with the Google opt-in system? I get the feeling that we'll maybe resolve some small percentage of rights questions, somewhere in the order of 2-5%. And it will, in the end, all be paid for by readers, or by libraries on behalf of readers.


TILT! Rights holders can opt-out of the Google Books database. If (when) Google has the monopoly on books online, opt-out will be a nifty form of censorship. Actually, censorship aimed directly at Google will be a nifty form of censorship.


GAME OVER. All your book belong to us.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2022 01:31AM by petersz.

....

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2022 01:51AM by petersz.

[kcoyle.blogspot.com] />

Tuesday, November 18, 2021
Google Giveth ... and Taketh Away
Some additions, amendments.

The agreement between Google and the AAP is of great significance for libraries. It is also very long, written in "legalese", and contains conclusions of a lengthy negotiation without revealing the nature of the discussion. Given that many lawyers were involved, we may never get the back story of this historic settlement, yet it has the potential to change the landscape on rights, digitization, and libraries.

I am basing much of my analysis on the summary of the agreement produced by ARL. This unfortunately means that some errors may be introduced between their summary and my interpretation. I have gone to the original document to check some particulars, such as definitions, but much of that document goes unread for now.

Key Points

(... or, a summary of the summary)

* The agreement is primarily about books that are presumed to be in copyright but which are no longer in print. In-print books continue to be managed directly by the rights holders, who can make agreements with Google (or anyone else) for uses of those items.

* The agreement has some odd limitations that baffle me: it only covers books published in the US that have been registered with the Copyright Office. It does not include any books published after January 5, 2022 .The settlement does cover non-US books (e.g. Berne countries); I'm still unclear on the statement about registration for US books, but it was cited in the ARL document.

* The agreement trades off Google's liability with payment to rights holders. That is, as long as Google requires payment from users to displays and copies, and passes 2/3 of those monies to the rights holder, Google is exempt from copyright infringement claims by rights owners. So users of the digital files will pay to keep Google legal.

* The agreement does not answer the all-important question of whether scanning for the purposes of searching is an allowed use under copyright law.

* The agreement flaunts the concept of Fair Use by quantifying the amount of an in-copyright book that users can view for free ("20% of the text," "five adjacent pages," but not the final 5% of a fiction book, to keep the endings a surprise.) The ARL document has Google saying that it will not interfere with fair use. I can't find that statement in the actual settlement. These quantities are contractual, and I'm assuming that that technology will not allow users to exert fair use rights, only the contractual agreement.

* Google will sell digital copies of in-copyright books to users, who will have perpetual access to the book online. Some printing will be allowed but all printed pages will have a watermark that identifies the user. (I'm calling this "ratwear," software that rats you out.) Users will be able to make notes on the book's pages, but they will only be able to share those notes with other purchasers of the book. (Thus buying a Google book is like joining a secret reading club.) The settle states that the watermark will identifier either the user, or other information "which could be used to identify the authorized user that printed the material or the access point from which the material was printed." Agreement, p. 47


Key Points Relating to Libraries

This is the hard part for me. Hard in that it really hurts.

* After digitizing books held in libraries, Google will then turn around and become a library vendor, supplying those same books back to libraries under Google's control. Each public library in the US will get a single "terminal" provided (and presumably controlled) by Google that allows users to view (but not copy and paste from) books in the Google database. Some printing is allowed, but there will be a per-page fee charged.

* Libraries and institutions can also subscribe to all or part of the database of out of print books. Access is not perpetual, but limited to the life of the subscription.

* There is verbiage about how users in these institutions can share their "annotations." In other words, if you take notes on your own, obviously those are yours. But if you use the capabilities of the system to make your notes in the system, you cannot share your own notes freely.


Now for the Clincher

... this is the pact with the devil.

* A library can partner with Google for digitization of its collection and get the same release from liability that Google has. The library can keep copies of these digitized books, however, it must follow security standards set by Google and the AAP and must submit its security plan for review and allow yearly auditing. (The security measures are formidable and quite possibly not affordable for all but the wealthiest institutions. There are huge penalties up to millions of dollars for not getting security right.)

* Libraries that make this pact with the devil are thereby allowed to preserve the files, print replacement copies for deteriorating books, and provide access for people with disabilities. Note that all of these uses by libraries are already allowed by copyright law.

* The libraries that make this pact with the devil cannot let their users read the digitized books. Well, they can let them read up to five (5!) pages in any digitized book. Presumably if the library wants to provide other uses it must subscribe to Google's service. Libraries are expressly forbidden from using their copies of the books for interlibrary loan, e-reserves, or in course management systems.


... and if you refuse to negotiate with the devil...

* Current Google library partners who do not choose to become party to this must delete all copies of digitizations of in-copyright works made by the Google project in order to obtain a release from liability. If they choose not to delete the copies, they are on their own in terms of liability for the in-copyright books that Google did digitize (and Google knows exactly which books are involved.)

* Even if the library was only allowing Google to digitize public domain works, those libraries must destroy all of their copies to get release from liability in case they mis-judged the copyright status of one of the those books.

In other words, this agreement is making the assumption that if anyone sues Google for copyright infringement, the library will be a party to that suit.

They say that "the devil is in the details." In this case that is not true: the devil is right up front, in the main message. That message is that Google has agreed with the publishers, and is selling out the libraries that is has been working with. The deal that Google and the libraries had was that in exchange for working with Google to digitize books in their collections, the libraries received a copy of the digital file. After that, it was up to the libraries to do the right thing based on their understanding of copyright law. Participating with Google has been an expensive proposition for the libraries in terms of their own staff time and in the development of digital storage facilities. Part of the appeal of working with Google was the assumption that partnering with the search giant gve the entire project clout and provided some protection for the libraries. With Google and the AAP now in cahoots, the libraries must join them or try to stand alone in an unclear legal situation; an unclear situation that Google invited the libraries into in the first place.

This is classic bait and switch. And it is bait and switch with powerful commercial interests against public institutions. There is no question about it...

THIS IS EVIL

Note: I've added more comment and info in the comments area as things pop up. So read on....

[kcoyle.blogspot.com] />

Saturday, November 22, 2021
More on Google/AAP
Here are some more bits and thoughts on the agreement between Google and the AAP.

Library Involvement

Some librarians were involved in the settlement talks. The only one I have found so far who has come out about this is Georgia Harper. The librarians were working under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), and therefore will not be able to reveal any details of the discussions. I have heard statements from others who I believe were privy to the negotiations, and they all seem to feel that the outcome was better for libraries due to the involvement of members of our "class." (Note that Google and AAP had high-end lawyers arguing their side, and we had hard-working librarians. I don't know how many of "our" representatives were also lawyers, but you can just imagine how greatly out-gunned they were.) Unfortunately that doesn't change my mind about the bait and switch move.

Google Books as Library

Some have begun to refer to Google Books as a library. We have to do some serious thinking about what the Google Book database really is. To begin with, it's not a research collection, at least not at this point. It's really a somewhat odd, almost random bunch of book "stuff." As you know, neither Google nor the libraries are selecting particular books for digitization. This is a "mass digitization" project that starts at one end of a library and plows through blindly to the other end. Some libraries have limited Google to public domain works, so in terms of any area of study there is an artificial cut-off of knowledge. Not to mention that some libraries, mainly the University of California, have been working with Google primarily to digitize books in their two storage facilities; that is, they have been digitizing the low use books that were stored remotely.

So the main reason why Google Books is not a library is that it isn't what we would call a "collection." The books have not been chosen to support a particular discipline or research area. Yet it will become a de facto collection because people will begin using it for research. Thus "all human knowledge" becomes something more like the elephant and the blind man: research in online resources and research that uses print materials will get very different views of human knowledge. (This is not a new phenomenon. I wrote about this in terms of some early digital projects I was involved in.) One of the big gaps in Google Books will be current materials, those that are still in print. Google will need to convince the publishers that it can increase their revenue stream for current books in order to get them to participate.

Subscribing to Google Books: Just Say No?

Beyond the (undoubtedly hard-won by library representatives) single terminal access in each public library in the US, libraries will be asked to subscribe to the Google Book service in order to give their users access to the text of the books (not just the search capability). This is one of the more painful aspects of the agreement because it seems to ignore the public costs that went in to the purchase, organization, and storage of those works by libraries. (I'm not includng privately funded libraries here, but many of the participants are publicly funded.) The parallels with the OCLC mess are ironic: libraries paying for access to their own materials. So, couldn't the libraries just refuse to subscribe? Not really. Publicly funded libraries have a mission to provide access to the world's intellectual output in a way that best serves their users. When something new comes along -- films on DVD, music on CD, the Internet -- libraries must do what they can to make sure that their users are not informationally underpriviledged. Google now has the largest body of digitized full text, and there will be a kind of "information arms race" as institutions work to make sure that their users can compete using these new resources.

The (Somewhat Hidden) Carrot

I can't imagine that anyone thought that libraries and Google were digitizing books primarily so that people could read what are essentially photographs of book pages on a computer screen. Google initially stated that they were only interested in searching the full text of books. While interesting in itself, keyword searching of rather poor OCR text is not a killer app. What we gain by having a large number of digitized books is a large corpus on which we can do computational research. We can experiment with ideas like: can we follow the flow of knowledge through these texts? Can we create topic maps of fields of study? Can we identify the seminal works in some area? The ability to do this research is included in the agreement (section 7.2(d), The Research Corpus). There will be two copies of this corpus allowed under the agreement, although I don't see any detail as to what the "corpus" will consist of. Will it just be a huge file of digitized books and OCR? Will it be a set of services?

I have suspected for a while that Google was already doing research on the digital files that it holds. It only makes sense. For academics in areas like statistics, computer science, and linguistics, this corpus opens up a whole range of possibilities for research; and research means grants, and grants mean jobs (or tenure, as the case may be). This will be a strong motivation for institutions to want to participate in the Google Book product. Research will NOT be limited to participants; others can request access. What I haven't yet found is anything relating to pricing for the use of the research collection, nor if being a participating library grants less expensive access for your institution. If the latter is the case, then one motivation for libraries to agree to allow Google to scan their books (at some continuing cost to the library) will be that it favors the institution's researchers in this new and exciting area. Full participant libraries (the ones that get to keep the digital copies of their works) can treat their own corpus as research fodder. The other costs of being a full participant are such that I'll still be surprised if any libraries go that route, but if they do I think that this "hidden carrot" will be a big part of it.

----

There's lots of good blogging going on out there on this topic. It needs a cumulative page to help people find the posts. Please tell me you have time to work on that, so I don't have to take it on! (Or that it exists already and I've missed it.) (The PureInformation Blog has a good list.)

Note: the Internet Archive/OCA may take this on. I'll post if/when they do.

Previous posts:

* Google/AAP settlement November 3, 2021

* Google Giveth...and Taketh Away, November 18, 2021

Posted by Karen Coyle at 7:54 AM

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2022 01:50AM by petersz.

The proper method of using that quote, old man, is "all your book are belong to us".

You have to understand the mind of the devout netizen, freedom of information is their highest ideal. The days of secrets are dead.

P.,

no...own 'intellectual property', young man, is their goal, not "freedom of information." I'm glad you read the posting anyway, since the issues will be important for anyone using a browser in the near future.

pax,

Peter

Peter,
I had trouble filtering through all the information. I am interested to understand what it's telling us. Would you mind scaling it down to a more simple explanation and the implications? thanks.

Mary

A couple of thoughts on this discussion:

Back in 1970, the voters of California rejected by a large margin an option proposed by media giants CBS and Warner Communications to provide Pay TV, AKA cable television within this state. The people spoke, but did the government listen?
No, the lobbyists in Sacramento passed a bill allowing cable TV the very next year. I think of that everytime my cable bill goes up.


From either Orwell, or Huxley, "the first step in controlling what people think begins by controlling what they read (hear).

Happy new year, everyone.



Les

Happy New Year, Les.

Eh, didn't read that part, you do tend soupbox, so I just ignored most of it.

s'ok, P. I know when I'm soap boxing...I just get too pissed at the goings on. Us human being deserve better than we dish out.

I'd rather post poetry than tell people to lift their heads out of the sand when CORPORATIONS are stealing their minds.

cheers,

Peter

Mary,

Google's made a deal with AAP, as far as I can figure it, regarding the dissemination of digitalized books. They'll control what is preserved and what's deleted and what not available for the next generation...I'm not sure whether it's copyrighted stuff or public domain or both.

I posted these three columns on it so youse people could help me sort through the issues. That is, I am sure there are issues here important to any poet or writer, but I don't claim to fully grasp the issues yet myself. I figure the more poets keeping an eye out for this kind of thing, the safer everybody else will be, since we are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. It is something to return to and to keep an I on the internet for by Googling: "Google AAP" periodically to keep up to date on.

salom

Peter

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2022 03:54AM by petersz.

Eh, I wouldn't know. But from the majority of my experience with techies, I'm not worried. They tend to bend rules playfully but rarely with big brother type greed. And though companies trade hands, I find it unlikely that the employees, techies, would go along with any power schemes. But I don't know.

While you are keeping your eyes on Google who is going to watch Blackwater?


Who is the AAP, and how is this going to hurt any of us?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2022 11:32AM by Merc.

Ha! Let's not forget that we're all quite sensitive, gentlemen.

Merc and Mary,

Merc and Mary,

Here’s another point of view, not one I agree with completely, but it identifies some of the participants and may show another take on the issues. From “theunifficial googleweblog who watches the watchmen?” [google.weblogsinc.com] />
AAP Sues Google
Posted Oct 19th 2005 1:02PM by Brad Hill
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has sued Google over the Google Print for Libraries project. this lawsuit is separate from a similar action brought by the Authors Guild about a month ago. The AAP represents over 300 publishers, including some of the world's largest: Pearson Education, Wiley, McGraw-Hill, Simon and Schuster. Roughly half of my books are published by Pearson or Wiley, so I won't be reaping the benefits of Google Print for Libraries anytime soon. And I do think the project would be benficial for everyone involved; the AAP and Authors Guild are suing over copyright principle.

That's the problem—Google is ignoring the letter of the law (from the publishers' viewpoint) and concentrating on perceived value. Google is also putting its eggs in the Fair Use basket; Fair Use is a hard-to-define aspect of copyright law that is decided on a case-by-case basis. Google's stand here is that since it will display only excerpts of its scanned material, it should be allowed to make whole copies of books without obtaining permission. Google is hoping for a Fair Use ruling that will give it statutory freedom to scan whole libraries.

AAP president Pat Schroeder acknowledges possible benefits of Google Print, but is quoted saying, "Google Print Library could help many authors get more exposure and maybe even sell more books, authors and publishers should not be asked to waive their long-held rights so that Google can profit from this venture."

AAP set up a strong foundation for this lawsuit by proposing a copyright-friendly jsolution to Google, which was declined. Schroeder: "As a way of accomplishing the legal use of copyrighted works in the Print Library Project, AAP proposed to Google that they utilize the well-known ISBN numbering system to identify works under copyright and secure permission from publishers and authors to scan these works. Since the inception of the ISBN system in 1967, a unique ISBN number has been placed on every book, identifying each book and linking it to a specific publisher. Google flatly rejected this reasonable proposal."

Defending Google Print for Libraries, CEO Eric Schmidt wrote a Wall Street Journal editorial in which he said, in part, "This policy is entirely in keeping with our main Web search engine. In order to guide users to the information they're looking for, we copy and index all the Web sites we find. If we didn't, a useful search engine would be impossible, and the same dynamic applies to the Google Print Library Project." This is dangerous ground upon which to tread, and Google is staking a lot in this tactic. Observers have noted for years that Google's Web index and caching machine arguably violate U.S. copyright. By tying Google Web search with Google Print policies, Schmidt is essentially saying, "If the courts rule against Google Print for Libraries, then our search engine is likewise an infringing business."
********
ps.,

Merc,

I don't think it's going to be the nu gument gunna do it. 'Sides, "the night has a thousand eyes."

cheers,

Peter

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2022 12:42PM by petersz.

This Pat Schroeder any relation to the moron who used to be in congress from Colorado?

She's the same, though we differ on whether she's a 'moron,' since I'd prefer her of "the Teflon President" who I did think was a 'moron.' -- puff, what a diversion to talk about personalities instead of issues of control of the content of books and its availability in the face of the electronic innovations of our day.

Just another of our differences, I supposed.

My original intent on posting these columns was to provide information and the impetus for others to find out more about the issues of copyright ownership by the folks at Google who are a bunch I do not trust on the basis of their product which I have used and been beat down by its foibles these many years. I have nothing invested in the reputation of Pat Schroeder or in any of the other personnel involved, including Nicholson Baker, what evidently has something to say about the ramifications of book burning elsewhere. Check him out.

amo,

Peter

Now him I never heard of . Far as Pat goes, you know I'm not going to like her any more than you are going to like Sean Hannity. That's ok, feel free to call him a moron if you wish. I have wondered what ever happened to her. I once moved while I lived in Denver, so I could vote against her. Turned out the moron was me. I moved FROM her district to another were her name wasn't on the ballot.

I have read and reread the whole of this thread a couple times and I'm still not sure why the sky is falling, nor where it's going to land. Google is a bunch of guys who figgured out how to make a few million without picking up anything heavy. Probably don't consider themselves robbers.

Hey, if I make you sick too, just go ahead and puke. Send me the bill for your carpet cleaning.

Is repurused a word? Can it be used in an Englsh sentence?

Peter, I saw a cartoon in a magazine once back when I was young enough that I had to look up the word.

A guy (probably a friend of yours) was dressed in a robe, long hair, beard, no shoes, packing a sign... Sign sez, "Everything is apathy" A guy who was probably a friend of mine says to him, "Who gives a shit?"

I think I may finially understand the problem here. If I'm right, get ready... wait for it.... here it comes..... I agree with you.

Thanks, Peter, for your attempt to explain it. I'm glad to know I'm not completely dim witted for not understanding it all...or any of it probably. Technology is changing so rapidly that it is of no suprise that there are issues. There's no comparison of apples to apples when examining laws written in the absence of such technology and by the time some safeguards are put into place or new laws written, there probably won't even be libraries as we know them. I'm not the person to get on this rollercoaster because change doesn't come easy to me and I'm the girl who would rather be hauling water from the well and living off the land. It bugged me to have to leave my great grandfather's original works at the library in Kentucky, while I paid $20.00 for a photocopied version with a shiny new cover off of Amazon.com. He's dead. So who's getting the $20.00 I must pay just to read something he wrote? I'm pretty sure he'd be ticked off about it too.

Again, thanks.

Mary

I guess reperused is better than repossessed.

ha! no puke here.

cheers all, Peter

Is repossessed what happened to that little girl who puked pea soup?