The n-Category Café

My experience is that most scans at Google Books now are terrible with their low resolution and overall low quality.

This is also true for many commercial journals who have scans of their old issues. For example, most libraries do not have access to the prior to 1993 issues of Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra. I was 2 week a guest at Newton Institute at Cambridge which has access to JPAA and downloaded about 15 papers from issues of my interest; however I observed dirty (with spurious shades)
and low resolution scans with hardly recognizable math symbols (the price for single-paper downloads of non-subscribers being enormous). After obtaining so
a legal copy quality paid copy of R. Street’s paper
“Formal theory of monads” from 1972, I got upset and scanned another hi-quality copy for myself from a paper issue of the journal. Now I own a bad legal and good illegal copy of the same paper, the same pages. What is the legal status of having both ? Funny how stupid laws the mankind created, seemingly for its own “good”. I know some good stores which give you items which you bought spoiled, after-expiration-date, with errors or sold for illegal prize by clerical error for free.

Should I therefore post the scan above publicly; do they consider my time spent reading unreadable characters a collateral damage ?

Librarians have joined the fray. Many of them are quite worried that Google may now effectively ‘own’ most books whose copyright has expired. Here’s something from an email I got about this:

Library associations ask judge to assert vigorous oversight of proposed Google Book Search Settlement

WASHINGTON, DC – The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) today filed comments with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for the judge to consider in his ruling on the proposed Google Book Search Settlement. The associations asked the judge to exercise vigorous oversight of the interpretation and implementation of the settlement to ensure the broadest possible benefit from the services the settlement enables.

Representing over 139,000 libraries and 350,000 librarians, the associations filed the brief as members of the plaintiff class because they are both authors and publishers of books. The associations asserted that although the settlement has the potential to provide public access to millions of books, many of the features of the settlement, including the absence of competition for the new services, could compromise fundamental library values including equity of access to information, patron privacy and intellectual freedom. The court can mitigate these possible negative effects by regulating the conduct of Google and the Book Rights Registry the settlement establishes.

“While this settlement agreement could provide unprecedented access to a digital library of millions of books, we are concerned that the cost of an institutional subscription may skyrocket, as academic journal subscriptions have over the past two decades,” Erika Linke, president of ACRL, said.

Under the settlement, Google, the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild resolved their legal dispute over the scanning of millions of books provided by research libraries. The library associations are not asking the judge to reject the settlement. Instead, they are requesting the judge to carefully monitor the parties’ behavior once the settlement takes effect.

Jim Rettig, president of ALA, said the proposed settlement, “offers no assurances that the privacy of what the public accessed will be protected, which is in stark contrast to the long-standing patron privacy rights libraries champion on behalf of the public.”

Although the filing deadline for comments to the judge was recently extended by four months, the associations moved forward with filing by the original deadline to help inform the public as it considers this important and complex matter.

“The filing before the court by the library associations demonstrates that the associations will be vigilant in highlighting the interests of the public in this settlement. We have asked the court to exercise vigorous oversight to ensure that the powerful groups that control content do not leave individual researchers, libraries, other cultural organizations and the public without an effective voice,” Tom Leonard, president of ARL, said.

The library associations filing can be viewed on the ALA or ARL Web sites.

The latest news:

By MIGUEL HELFT NY Times
Published: May 20, 2009K

SAN FRANCISCO — In a move that could blunt some of the criticism of Google for its settlement of a lawsuit over its book-scanning project, the company signed an agreement with the University of Michigan that would give some libraries a degree of oversight over the prices Google could charge for its vast digital library.

Google has faced an onslaught of opposition over the far-reaching settlement with authors and publishers. Complaints include the exclusive rights the agreement gives Google to publish online and to profit from millions of so-called orphan books, out-of-print books that are protected by copyright but whose rights holders cannot be found.

The Justice Department has also begun an inquiry into whether the settlement, which is subject to approval by a court, would violate antitrust laws.

Google used the opportunity of the University of Michigan agreement to rebut some criticism.

“I think that it’s pretty short- sighted and contradictory,” said Sergey Brin, a Google co-founder and its president of technology. Mr. Brin said the settlement would allow Google to offer widespread access to millions of books that are largely hidden in the stacks of university libraries.

“We are increasing choices,” Mr. Brin said. “There was no option prior to this to get these sorts of books online.”

Under Google’s plan for the collection, public libraries will get free access to the full texts for their patrons at one computer, and universities will be able to buy subscriptions to make the service generally available, with rates based on their student enrollment.

The new agreement, which Google hopes other libraries will endorse, lets the University of Michigan object if it thinks the prices Google charges libraries for access to its digital collection are too high, a major concern of some librarians. Any pricing dispute would be resolved through arbitration.

Only the institutions that lend books to Google for scanning — now 21 libraries in the United States — would be allowed to object to pricing.

The new agreement also gives the university, and any library that signs a similar agreement, a discount on its subscription proportional to the number of books it contributes to Google’s mass digitization project. Since Michigan is lending a large number of books, it will receive Google’s service free for 25 years.

“This agreement gives us a number of things in the context of the settlement that are valuable to us and we think are valuable to other libraries,” said Paul Courant, dean of libraries at the University of Michigan.

The American Library Association, which has asked the court to oversee aspects of the settlement, said the new agreement is a step in the right direction but is insufficient to ensure that Google does not set artificially high prices for its digital collection.

“Any library must have the ability to request that the judge review the pricing should a dispute arise,” said Corey Williams, associate director at the association’s Washington office.

Since libraries that contribute books will receive discounts, they may have fewer incentives to complain about prices.

The new agreement does not address other criticism, including the complaints over orphan works and worries that the agreement does not protect the privacy of readers of Google’s digital library.

The University of California is one of the institutions that lent books to Google for scanning.

You folks have probably seen that the Google Books settlement is attacting more attention lately… but if not, try this:

• Ed Pilkington, Google’s book project faces growing opposition, The Guardian, August 19, 2009.

Sample quote:

Opponents and supporters of Google’s plans are lining up for a showdown that will come to a head on 4 September, the deadline for submissions to be lodged with a Manhattan court that is reviewing the scheme, known as Google Book Search.

The court is considering whether or not to give the go-ahead to the settlement of a class-action suit that Google reached with key publisher and writers’ groups last October. The settlement, approved by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, provides for a pot of $125m (£75m) that Google has agreed to pay to cover copyright infringements it had already committed by scanning books online.

The settlement would also give writers and publishers the equivalent of 63% of future revenues generated by sales of digital books and other income, while Google would keep the remaining 37%.

And this:

• Miguel Helft and Motoko Rich, Lawyer and author adds his objections to settling the Google Book lawsuit, New York Times, August 18, 2009.

Sample quote:

In the latest objection, Scott E. Gant, an author and partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, a prominent Washington law firm, plans to file a sweeping opposition to the settlement on Wednesday urging the court to reject it.

“This is a predominantly commercial transaction and one that should be undertaken through the normal commercial process, which is negotiation and informed consent,” Mr. Gant said in an interview. Google and its partners are “trying to ram this through so that millions of copyright holders will have no idea that this is happening.”

Unlike most previous objections to the project, which focused on policy issues and recommended modifications to the settlement, Mr. Gant argues that the agreement, which gives Google commercial rights to millions of books without having to negotiate for them individually, amounts to an abuse of the class-action process. He also contends that it does not sufficiently compensate authors and does not adequately notify and represent all the authors affected.

Some news from Associated Press:

Sep 10th, 2009 | MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. – Google will let other online companies sell its digital copies of out-of-print books if a class-action settlement with U.S. authors and publishers wins court approval.

The company announced that concession Thursday after mounting opposition to Google’s 10-month-old settlement. Among other things, opponents of the deal argue it would give Google a digital monopoly on millions of books that are no longer being published.

Google now says it will give Amazon.com and other rivals to its digital library of out-of-print books. The other merchants would then be allowed to keep most of the revenue from the sales.

Google announced the change shortly after the head of the U.S. Copyright Office advised a congressional committee that parts of the settlement violate federal law.