Last Friday the parties to the USGoogle Book Searchlitigation filed arevised settlement proposal. The original proposal
had drawn vociferous objections from the French, German, and US
governments, as well as from authors, publishers, libraries,
academics, and consumer groups across Europe and the world,writes David Wood, legal counsel for theInitiative for a Competitive
Online Marketplace(ICOMP).
The revised proposal does not fix the serious problems that led
to widespread European condemnation of the settlement. Although
some European works will technically now fall outside the scope of
the settlement, Google appears intent to continue copying and
engaging in "snippet" display of copyrighted European works through
its existing arrangements with American libraries. To say the
least, the revised settlement is a massive disappointment.
Google's newest proposal, like the earlier version, is a
disaster. It would give Google a monopoly over millions of the
world's books. It would also further entrench Google's dominance in
search, stifle innovation and harm consumers in a vitally important
sector of the internet ecosystem. It should be - and for the good
of the internet must be - rejected.
ICOMP, like many others, objected to the original settlement
proposal because it would have granted Google de facto exclusive
rights for the digital distribution of millions of orphan works as
well as many other books. It also would have given Google a virtual
monopoly over the ability to search books online, further
strengthening its dominant position in online search and search
advertising.
The revised settlement proposal does nothing to fix these
problems. New provisions only give retailers the ability to
"resell" access to Google's scanned copies of books to consumers.
It also essentially guarantees that no other commercial entity,
either in Europe or elsewhere, will be able either to access or
replicate the database that the settlement proposal places under
Google's sole control. Consumers wishing to search for books online
will have to use Google or nothing.
The revised provisions on orphan works are similarly a failure,
as Google still gets to keep a significant share of any profits
from orphan works and to maintain its grip on online access to
orphan works.
If Google were serious about allowing meaningful competition,
the settlement would allow any company to access copies of orphan
works scanned pursuant to the settlement on the same terms as
Google. This would have been a simple fix to make and would have
alleviated many of the most serious competition concerns.
Equally disturbing is that this settlement will give Google
inordinate influence over Europe's own efforts to develop online
digital libraries. It will give Google overwhelming influence over
how much consumers and libraries pay for access, and how much
authors and publishers earn. It is clear that Google's pricing in
the US will also have a strong influence on the pricing of any
similar digital library project that emerges in Europe.
Without competition, Google will face no pressure to innovate,
to improve its services, or lower its prices. Online access to
millions of books will remain locked up in the database of a single
American company, and only Google will have the key. The world's
literary heritage is simply too important to abandon to such a
fate.
Google defends book-scanning project >>