RE: Library Journal editorial about the Google Book Search settlement

["Klein, Bonnie CIV DTIC O" <BKlein@dtic.mil>]

What is at stake are the current exceptions in copyright law - 
Sections 108, 109 and to a lesser extent 110 - that are key to 
library operations, whether brick or click.  We are moving to 
accept as common general practice that every instance of online 
access may be controlled by the copyright owner [or authorized 
agent] and subject to toll or metered use.  Over time this may 
undermine and erode the relevance and need for Title 17 
exceptions.

Bonnie Klein

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Okerson, Ann
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:00 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Library Journal editorial about the Google Book Search
settlement

Dear All:  I find it notable that in the various forwarded 
articles and postings, the comments about the Google Settlement 
are negative.  So let me risk life and limb to say that I've 
found commendable aspects about the Settlement and the future 
access it may provide for readers.  Please call off the attack 
dogs -- I didn't say it was perfect, but Isabella Hinds, when she 
was at the CCC, used to say that generally a good agreement is 
one in which all the parties are a bit unhappy.  I've never 
forgotten those wise words.  Many of the Settlement comments also 
strike me as unrealistic (for example, how could public libraries 
have been at this particular negotiating table?).

What I hear from readers is that they are waiting for the day 
when a click on a library catalog entry will take them directly 
to the full text of the item and speed up their ability to get 
information and do research.  The Google partnerships and 
projects bring us closer to a version of that day, much sooner 
than we could have imagined even 5 years ago. Is this good? Yes. 
Is this going to be the only large-scale digital source in town? 
One hopes not, and that future remains to all of us non-Google 
entities to determine.  Bah-Humbug isn't the right response to 
the Settlement.  It's Christmas, after all.

Ann Okerson/Yale Library (not representing the views of my 
Library, which has not taken any position on this matter!)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]
On Behalf Of B.G. Sloan
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:18 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Library Journal editorial about the Google Book Search
settlement

Library Journal has an editorial about the recent Google Book
Search settlement with publishers and authors.

Fialkoff, Francine. Editorial: Google Deal or Rip-Off? Library
Journal. December 15, 2008.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6618842.html

The editorial concludes: "... librarians must do better than to
acquiesce in an arrangement that relinquishes ownership of books
online in favor of contractual provisions and for-pay schemes
that subvert the ideals of the public library and academic
inquiry."

Bernie Sloan
Sora Associates
Bloomington, IN