Library Copyright Alliance Releases “GBS March Madness” Diagram
The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) announce the release of “GBS March Madness: Paths Forward for the Google Books Settlement.” This diagram, developed by Jonathan Band, explores the many possible routes and outcomes of the Google Books Settlement, including avenues into the litigation and appeals process.
Now that the fairness hearing on the Google Books Settlement has occurred, it is up to Judge Chin to decide whether the amended settlement agreement (ASA), submitted to the Court by Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers, is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” As the diagram shows, however, Judge Chin’s decision is only the next step in a very complex legal proceeding that could take a dozen more turns before reaching resolution. Despite the complexity of the diagram, it does not reflect every possible twist in the case, nor does it address the substantive reasons why a certain outcome may occur or the impact of Congressional intervention through legislation. As Band states, “the precise way forward is more difficult to predict than the NCAA tournament. And although the next step in the GBS saga may occur this March, many more NCAA tournaments will come and go before the buzzer sounds on this dispute.”
To view the diagram, please visit: http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/gbs-march-madness-diagram-final.pdf
The Library Copyright Alliance is a coalition of library associations made up of the Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of College and Research Libraries. More information about LCA is available at http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/.
US Department of Justice Has Continued Concerns with Google Book Settlement
In its February 4th filing, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) again has recommended that the Court send the settlement parties back to the drawing board to re-negotiate the terms in the amended settlement agreement (ASA) due to continued concerns regarding the scope of the agreement. Stating that the ASA “suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement,” the US DOJ argues that the class settlement mechanism has been used by Google, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the Authors Guild to settle a dispute that goes well beyond the initial complaint – whether the scanning of books to provide an online searchable index is a fair use. Instead, the agreement establishes a new business arrangement for the sale of books without providing sufficient notice to rights holders in a fashion that conveys to Google market dominance. The US DOJ also expressed concern about the Books Rights Registry and its control over the “Unclaimed Works Fiduciary,” that would dictate pricing and terms of use for unclaimed works. The filing (pdf) also includes a list of recommendations for the Court should it decide to approve the ASA at the fairness hearing scheduled for February 18th.