Copyright Head Tells House She Opposes Google Books Settlement
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee September 10, Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters raised strong objections to the proposed settlement of lawsuits challenging Google’s Book Search project. Calling parts of the settlement “fundamentally at odds with the law”, she warned the deal could undermine Congress’ ability to govern copyrights and could have “serious international implications” for books published outside the United States, the Associated Press reported September 11.
The committee met to examine the settlement, which allows Google to scan copyrighted books and display up to 20% of the text to users at no charge. Google will sell online access to individual books; libraries, universities, and other institutions can purchase online subscriptions to large collections. The firm will keep 37% of the revenue, with the remainder going to copyright holders through a Book Rights Registry.
In her prepared testimony (PDF file), Peters said the proposal “inappropriately creates something similar to a compulsory license for works, unfairly alters the property interests of millions of rights holders of out-of-print works without any Congressional oversight, and has the capacity to create diplomatic stress for the United States” by passing over concerns raised by foreign rights holders and foreign governments.
Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond called the Book Search project “fully compliant with copyright law,” and defended the settlement, saying it would “provide rights holders choice and competition,” and would “preserve Congress’s role in setting copyright policy.” As a concession to critics who fear the deal will hinder competition, he used the occasion of the hearing to announce that the firm would allow any book retailer to sell access to out-of-print books that would be made available through the settlement.
Also testifying in favor of the settlement were Authors Guild Executive Director Paul Aiken, National Federation of the Blind President Marc Maurer, and David Balto of the Center for American Progress. Opposing it were Amazon.com Vice President of Global Policy Paul Misener and John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog. Randal Picker of the University of Chicago Law School, while praising the Book Search project, voiced strong antitrust concerns.
In their comments the committee members generally supported the settlement. Committee Chair Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said, “It is a good thing to provide millions of Americans access to published works that otherwise wouldn’t be available to them,” although he voiced concern over Google’s “exclusive access to orphan works.” He added that “Google is in this position, in my view, not because they have engaged in predatory or anticompetitive behavior, but because they have built a better mousetrap in the eyes of mousetrap purchasers,” and called the settlement “fair to copyright owners.”
A myriad of parties filed legal briefs supporting and opposing the proposed settlement before a September 9 deadline. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for October 7 in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, which is overseeing the agreement.
Among the opponents submitting briefs were Google competitors Amazon, Microsoft, and Yahoo; the Open Book Alliance; the Internet Archive; and the governments of France and Germany. Supporters included several academic libraries involved with the project, including the University of Virginia, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and Cornell University Library; the Canadian Urban Libraries Council; the Computer and Communications Industry Associates, a technology industry trade group; 32 antitrust law and economics professors; and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
—Gordon Flagg, American Libraries Online Posted on September 16, 2009.