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.

CONTACTS:
Jenni Terry
ALA Washington Office Press Officer

Prudence S. Adler
ARL Associate Executive Director

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) today submitted a supplemental filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York overseeing the proposed Google Book Search settlement to address developments that have occurred since the groups submitted their filing on May 4.

While the library associations’ position has not changed since their initial filing, the groups believe that recent activity, such as an amended agreement reached between Google and the University of Michigan, the University of Texas-Austin and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Google’s recent public statement regarding privacy, and the library associations’ communication with the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) should be brought to the court’s attention.  In their supplemental filing, the library associations call upon the court to address concerns with pricing review, to direct Google to provide more detail on privacy issues, and to broaden representation on the Books Rights Registry.

Both of the filings emphasize that vigorous oversight by the court is needed to ensure the proposed settlement reached among Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers does not erode core library values, such as equity of access to information, patron privacy and intellectual freedom.

Supplemental Library Association Comments on the Proposed Settlement