With three events in three days, proponents of the Google Book Search settlement are hopeful that a final push before the September 4 opt-out deadline will help convince stakeholders of the value of the agreement—but judging from the questions at the different venues, as well as initial results from an unscientific PW reader's poll, concerns remain for the deal's various constituencies. The PW reader's poll, conducted before and after the events of last week, drew over 800 responses and found that 26% of respondents are still undecided about the deal, while another 10% indicated they were essentially indifferent to or had given up on trying to understand the agreement. Roughly 28% indicated lukewarm support for the settlement, either reporting that they wanted to see changes made or had reservations. Just 13% said they enthusiastically supported the deal as written, and 13% said they flatly opposed it.
The questions and concerns reflected in the poll were also evident at the three New York events. At the two-hour panel held July 28 at the New York Public Library, David Drummond, Google's senior v-p of corporate development and chief legal officer, conceded that the settlement document was complex and said he was not surprised by the contentious debate it has sparked. “It took us three years to negotiate,” he explained. “Each party had strong views, and each of us had to make compromises.”
Bertelsmann's Richard Sarnoff, one of the deal's architects, characterized it as a matter “of horses and barns,” noting that Google had already digitized millions of books and “given” them to libraries. He said publishers and authors had few real options: to sue Google and libraries until every copy was off the Internet; to sue and possibly lose; or this settlement, which he said “was the best way forward” for both sides.
The NYPL discussion took a twist when Columbia University copyright expert Kenneth Crews suggested the deal was a “revolution in publishing.” Crews said the deal could dramatically change the way books are accessed, bought, read, distributed and used. “If we are about to recast publishing, do we want to do so under these terms?” he asked. One panelist, author Peter Petre, said the answer was yes—only to be countered by Drummond, who said the answer was no—that is, no to Crews's entire premise. “Let's not get ahead of ourselves,” Drummond said, stressing that the deal applied mostly to “out-of-print books in libraries.”
NYPL's Josh Greenberg, however, questioned the deal's implications for a new world of “licensed” rather than owned books, referencing the recent controversy over Amazon's removal of digital copies of George Orwell's 1984 from Kindles. “The horse is out of the barn,” he noted, following Sarnoff's metaphor, “but the horse has been lo-jacked.”
While most of the panelists took turns lauding the benefits of the deal, attorney and library adviser Jonathan Band made perhaps the day's most realistic observation: what better options exist? “What makes the people who assume they would be losers under this deal assume they would do any better with legislation?” he asked, suggesting the most viable way forward was for the court to maintain vigorous authority over the deal's implementation, if it is approved.
At the NYPL event there was little discussion about the nuts and bolts of the deal, such as deadlines, or how to register or opt-out. There was a significant discussion about library access, particularly the one free terminal libraries will receive if the agreement goes through, but other key questions—such as pricing and Google's potential monopoly over orphan works—were given a rudimentary, somewhat vague treatment. The panelists insisted, however, that the deal as written would surely change as it evolved in practice. Sarnoff urged attendees not to view the settlement as the final word but as a framework from which to start to prepare for the digital age.
The Fine Print
The panel wound down with a discussion about privacy—for which no one had a comforting answer. Drummond stressed that privacy was core to Google, but panelists conceded that censorship in China and government subpoenas at home loom as a challenge for the digital age at large, not just for Google Book Search. “The solution,” author James Gleick said, “is to make privacy a public policy issue.”
More logistical questions emerged about the fine print of the deal at a July 29 Google/AAP-sponsored webinar hosted by PW and at a July 30 event, hosted by the New York Center for Independent Publishing and the Copyright Clearance Center. There appeared to be some confusion among many questioners about everything from deadlines, to the scope and role of the Book Rights Registry, to what happens to book inserts and illustrations, anthologies, or whether books can be removed from Google's database.
While most of these questions can be answered on Google's FAQ page, CCC's Christopher Kenneally said people's lack of understanding, even at this late stage, was to be expected, given the deal's complexity and potential impact. “It's like doing your taxes,” he said, “or facing health-care legislation.” It's easy to be for or against, he noted, but taking the time to really understand it is another matter.
