THE GOOGLE BOOK SETTLEMENT A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE
Introduction
The Google Book Settlement is the most significant and controversial development in the history of books, as well perhaps in the history of copyright; it is the largest digitization project that Google, Inc. has undertaken in partnership with a number of major research libraries and publishers. There are an estimated 32 million books in the world, 15 million are fiction books and 17 million are non-fiction books.
Since 2002 Google has scanned 10 million books, mostly non-fiction book of which 15 – 20% are in the public domain, 10% are in copyright and in-print and 70 – 75% is in Copyright and out – of – print, without the publishers and authors consent.
The library project involves scanning every document and file in the following libraries and include of out-of print works from Michigan, Stanford, Ca, NYPL and Oxford (Harvard). The goal is to make a scan of each and every book on the planet. According to Google it costs about 30$ per book and to date 300 – 800 million dollars have been spent.
One can argue that books are probably the most traditional of all copyrightable works ever developed particularly for protecting the authors and publishers of books. Through the years, copyrights have been granted to creators of all kinds of works from films to software. While most of these other types of copyrighted works are strongly affected by new forms of content production and distribution in the course of the so-called “digital revolution”, books seem to have been relatively immune to the at least till now on the very same technological changes.
The Google Book Search has inspired intense controversies between supporters, painting an optimistic picture of universal access to all books ever published in the world for virtually everybody, and adversaries, fearing the rise of a knowledge monopolist, who exploits authors, publishers and readers alike.
The Law Suit
In 2005 two lawsuits were filed in the United States. The first by the American Authors Guild in a class action, filed in September 2005, the second by 5 publishers, the 2 cases were consolidated later, none of the 5 libraries were the subject of this lawsuit. The plaintiffs asserted breach of copyright, claiming that the scanning amounted to an infringement of copyright. Google on the other hand defended claiming consistently that it was fair use. There was a great deal of case law that came down between the filing of the suit and the first Settlement proposed.
The Settlement
In 2006, the parties engaged with Google to explore how to achieve a settlement of the lawsuits. Negotiations continued for more than two years. Google brought its library partners into some of the negotiations because the litigants envisioned a settlement under which Google would provide institutional subscriptions to libraries, and the settlement agreement needed to include some provisions for that, including a price setting mechanism. The first settlement (GBS 1.0) was announced on 28 October 2008 and involved a large amount of money paid in a variety of locations and includes the formation of a Books Rights Registry which will aggregate the royalty collection and the data base management.
In terms of the Settlement $45 million has been set aside as payouts to rights holders whose books Google have already been scanned, $60 for each book, $15 for each insert, and $5 for each partial insert. The lawyers for the author and publisher subclasses will get a total of $45.5 million if the settlement is approved. The rest of the settlement funds are being used to create the Book Rights Registry, which will be created upon approval of the settlement, although $12 million has already been spent on administrative matters, such as notifying members of the class about the settlement.
The proposed settlement agreement provided for the consolidation of the two lawsuits into one class action, the plaintiffs consisted of an Author Subclass and a Publisher Subclass to represent all persons or entities having a U.S. copyright interest in one or more books as of Jan. 5, 2009. In light of U.S. treaty commitments, this settlement would have given Google a license to virtually every in-copyright book in the world. The reason being that members of international copyright treaties agree to recognize copyrights in their countries of all works of foreign nationals whose countries are members of that treaty.
Due to the immense load of objections by foreign rights holders, an amended Settlement was proposed. The most significant change from Settlement 1.0 to Settlement 2.0 was a significant narrowing of the settlement’s geographic scope and excluded some foreign works by defining covered works to include only books registered in the U.S. or published in Canada, the U.K., or Australia.
The foreign rights holders objected to GBS 1.0 because under it Google would have gotten a license to scan all foreign rights holders’ books and to commercialize those that were not commercially available in the U.S. This would have meant that Google could have commercialized virtually all foreign books (which are generally not available in U.S. bookstores), unless their rights holders filled out complicated paperwork to protest this. As a result of these objections GBS 2.0 was proposed.
For purposes of GBS 2.0, a “Book” is a written or printed work that meets the following three conditions as of January 5, 2009:
- It was published or distributed to the public or made available for public access under the authorization of the work’s U.S. copyright owner or owners on sheets of paper bound together in hard copy form; and
- It is subject to a U.S. copyright interest (either through ownership, joint ownership, or an exclusive license) implicated by a use authorized by the Amended Settlement.
- If a “United States work,” it was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office; and
- If not a “United States work,” it was either registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or was published in Canada, the United Kingdom or Australia.
Under GBS 2.0 the only foreign rights holders who remain in the GBS settlement are those from the UK, Canada and Australia. Richard Sarnoff, chairman of AAP, explained that these countries had legal cultures and publishing industries similar to those in the U.S. How different, though, is South Africa’s legal and publishing culture from that of Canada or Australia?
That GBS 2.0 will take foreign rights holders out of the settlement class does not necessarily mean that Google will no longer scan foreign books. Nor does it mean that foreign books already scanned by Google will be deleted from the corpus. These books will almost certainly be available for Google’s use for non-display purposes, such as the development of better automated translation tools.
Being dropped from the settlement is also no guarantee that foreign books will not be commercialized. If foreign rights holders want to be certain that Google will stop scanning their books, remove the books from the GBS corpus, or cease commercially significant uses, they may have to sue Google to achieve their objectives.
Google does, however, intend to continue scanning foreign books into its search base, and to display snippets in response to search queries. In other words, Google intends to continue the existing Library Project with respect to the foreign books. Because the GBS 2.0 does not cover these books, their rights holders could sue Google for copyright infringement for scanning and snippet display and Google presumably would defend itself by claiming that its activities fall within the fair use privilege. Google also will attempt to negotiate for permission for full text display from foreign collecting societies that have the authority to represent the copyright interests of authors and publishers in their countries.
Eliminating the foreign books from the settlement means the elimination of many of the foreign rights holders from the class of plaintiffs. The plaintiff class is defined as the holders of a U.S. copyright interest in a book under the settlement; if a foreign book no longer is covered by the settlement, its rights holder no longer is a member of the plaintiff class. By removing foreign language books and their rights holders from the settlement, the parties have removed the source of much of the controversy concerning the settlement. At the same time, the products available under the GBS 2.0 will be far less comprehensive.
A fairness hearing on the GBS 2.0 was held in February 2010 and is currently being considered for approval by the presiding judge.
Criticism
Publishers fear the “Napsterization” of commercially valuable books in case the GBS would be “hacked” and all of the books therein, including the in-print books which are not available for display uses could be “liberated” by the hackers. Even more, attractive online book service providers such as the GBS could invite authors to cut out publishers as the traditional middle-man – especially, as they are already being asked to perform the bulk of copy-editing, formatting, and other tasks of book preparation anyway.
Some publishers criticize the suggested price setting procedures, fearing too low digital prices. As planned, Google would set prices for institutional subscriptions to out-of-print books in the corpus in consultation with the BRR, while prices for consumer purchases would be set through an algorithm designed to optimize the market returns for each books, although rights holders remain free to set their own prices for each book.
Similarly some professional authors worry that they will not be adequately compensated for Google’s commercial use of their books insofar Google keeps prices of GBS institutional subscriptions low.
While some publishers and professional authors are concerned prices could be too low, library associations and academic authors share the oppositional concern that approval of the settlement could, over time, lead to price gouging for institutional subscriptions. In addition to the power derived from the de facto monopoly that the settlement would confer on Google, super competitive prices could also result from the consultation with the BRR, whose mission is to represent rights holders who will almost certainly press for higher prices.
Users of the public access terminals at higher education and public libraries will be charged a fee for every page of every GBS book that patrons print out, and this fee will go to the BRR. While photocopying the same pages from a book taken off a library bookshelf would have been free as fair use in the US or as a private copy in Europe, this could be treated as a “precedent” by publishers for charging libraries per-page-copying fees more generally.
As GBS e-books will only be available online, readers are not able to lend their books to friends, resell their books or make private copies – all these are free uses of traditional books and at least of some other e-book formats.
Similarly to libraries, consumers also run the risk of paying monopoly prices, as Google intends to sell out-of-print e-books at an average price of $8.65; a rather high price given that in-print e-books are currently selling for $9.99 and sometimes less and are not bound to Internet access and server availability as in the GBS model.
Google’s unqualified right to sell the corpus to anyone without getting consent from BRR or anyone else as well as Google’s technological monopoly raise doubts across stakeholder groups with regard to quality and sustainability of GBS. Even more, Google can exclude books from GBS for editorial reasons, creating a risk of censorship. This risk is particularly salient as GBS searches cannot be conducted on removed books, even for purposes of letting a prospective reader know at which library the removed book can be found; Google is not planning to make a list of removed books available for public inspection and it need not say which books were left out.
For readers, inadequate guarantees of privacy protections could have a chilling effect on the willingness of users to read controversial materials, and consequently, may diminish the ability of authors of controversial books to earn money from them.
In what new ways will this agreement enable users to access books?
The agreement significantly expands access to millions of in-copyright books through Google Books.
Specifically, readers will be able to access books through:
- Preview — Allows users to freely preview a limited number of pages of in-copyright works to help users decide if the book is right for them to buy. Generally, out-of-print books will be available for preview, and in-print books will not unless the rights holder decides to activate previews through their participation in this settlement or through the Book Search Partner Program.
- Consumer Purchase — Offers individual users the ability to purchase access to view an entire in-copyright book online. The rights holder may set the price or allow the price to be set by a Google algorithm.
- Institutional Subscription — For academic, corporate, and government organizations. Gives members of the institution full access to in-copyright, out-of-print books.
- Free Public Library Access — Authorizes free, full-text, online viewing of in-copyright, out-of-print books at designated computers in U.S. public and university libraries at no charge to the library or the reader, with added revenues to the rights holders through per page printing fees.
- Future Services — The agreement allows for other services and uses, such as Print-On-Demand, Consumer Subscription and others, to be agreed in the future.
If approved, the settlement would provide:
- More Access to Out-of-Print Books — Generating greater exposure for millions of in-copyright works, including hard-to-find out-of-print books, by enabling readers in the U.S. to search these works and preview them online;
- Additional Ways to Purchase Copyrighted Books — Building off publishers’ and authors’ current efforts and further expanding the electronic market for copyrighted books in the U.S., by offering users the ability to purchase online access to many in-copyright books;
- Institutional Subscriptions to Millions of Books Online — Offering a means for U.S. colleges, universities and other organizations to obtain subscriptions for online access to collections from some of the world’s most renowned libraries;
- Free Access From U.S. Libraries — Providing free, full-text, online viewing of millions of out-of-print books at designated computers in U.S. public and university libraries; and
- Compensation to Authors and Publishers and Control Over Access to Their Works — Distributing payments earned from online access provided by Google and, prospectively, from similar programs that may be established by other providers, through a newly created independent, not-for-profit Book Rights Registry. The Book Rights Registry will locate rights holders, collect and maintain accurate rights holder information, and provide a way for rights holders to request inclusion in or exclusion from the project.
Conclusion
In the short run, the Google Book Search settlement will bring about much greater access to books collected by the major research libraries over the years. But it is very worrisome that this agreement, which was negotiated almost in secret by Google and a few attorneys working for the Authors Guild in America and AAP (who will, get up to $45.5 million in fees for their work on the settlement—more than all of the authors combined), will create two complementary monopolies with exclusive rights over a research corpus of such a magnitude.
The Book Search agreement is not really a settlement of a dispute over whether scanning books to index them is fair use. It is a major restructuring of the book industry’s future without much meaningful government oversight.








Recent Comments