A bit more info on a great book I'm champing at the bit to read: CLASS 11, by TJ Waters finally has a publish date: March, 2006. TJ was part of the first CIA class formed after 9/11, and he tells all about it. Right now, I'm told, it's under editorial review. CIA has okayed it after their review. So make a note on your calendar on Dec 31st that there are only three more months to wait....and put your order in at the bookstore in advance if you want a 1st edition.
Now on to the matter of Google and the Libraries:
From Publishers Lunch today comes the word:
AAUP Pops Quiz on Google Print for Libraries
Questions about--and potential objections to--Google's ambitious program to scan and index online the contents of major academic libraries have moved to a new level with the publication online by Business Week of a letter dated last Friday from Association of American University Presses executive director Peter Givler to Google senior counsel Alexander Macgillivray. Givler says the public posting of the letter "was a complete surprise."
While noting his members were initially enthusiastic about Google Print, Givler cites "mounting alarm and concern" over the library scanning program, saying it "appears to involve systematic infringement of copyright on a massive scale." He tells Lunch that the letter came after less formal questioning failed to produce satisfactory answers: "Google's responses have been completely non-substantive. They've finessed it and said 'It's a wonderful program. We're comfortable with our legal position and just trust us.'"
His goal, he says, is to persuade Google that publishers have some detailed concerns and it's time "to have a serious conversation."
The letter poses a series of 16 detailed questions (and requests answers within a month), and points to some of the currently gray areas in the library scanning program. Perhaps the largest objection is that Google kept the library venture secret even while negotiating with publishers for rights to the basic Google Print program, and an allegation that participation in Print is being used as fait accompli permission for the library program.
Givler says in the letter: "At the recent meeting of scientific, technical and medical publishers in Washington, your colleague J.R. Needham, if I heard him correctly, told us that it was unnecessary for Google to clear permissions for Google Print for Libraries with those publishers who had agreed to participate in Google Print for Publishers, because they had already given their consent. These facts are simply wrong. Publishers' contracts for Google Print are title-specific and can't be interpreted as a blanket license. Furthermore, no publisher knew about Google Print for Libraries until it was announced in mid-December."
Givler says that at least one publisher participating in Print has specifically asked to opt out of the library program on a blanket basis and "to date, Google has not complied," which he uses to question the general assurances that publishers can withdraw from these efforts whenever they want. Since the participating libraries are being given full digital copies of their own works to use as they wish, the letter notes that "'opting out' of Google Print would not remove those digital version from the libraries themselves."
Other gray areas of concern include Givler's understanding that "Google asserts that it can make these copies [the library scans] without seeking permission as a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act." He thinks the fair use claim pertains to the scanning itself and not the actual posting and indexing of the scanned material, though even there Givler remarks, "They haven't been terribly forthcoming." And Givler is concerned that at a recent presentation in London, Google reportedly asserted that copyright in the digital book scan files themselves would be owned by the search company.
Only time will tell whether this letter (and similar efforts said to be underway by other professional organizations) will simply lead to clarity in Google's positions or more aggressive action in opposition to their program. Here the AAUP is speaking for academic presses, some of which are directly associated with the same institutions whose libraries are partnering with Google. That makes the possibility of "litigation extremely remote"--though it does present a natural means for lobbying through the participating universities that Givler is just starting to explore.
We did not hear back from calls to Google for comment prior to posting.
AAUP letter
Wrap...
No comments:
Post a Comment