Prestidigitation
In response to pressure from competitors, rights-holders and regulators alike, Google has announced a revision to its controversial settlement with US authors and publishers. However, the Open Book Alliance, which represents many of the interests opposed to the settlement, including Microsoft and Amazon, has dismissed the revision as "a slight of hand".
Here's a summary of the key changes to the settlement:
- International scope. The settlement will only include books that were either registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or published in the U.K., Australia, or Canada.
- Unclaimed works. The Book Rights Registry will search for rights-holders who have not yet come forward and to hold revenue on their behalf.
- Syndication of All Works in the Settlement to Others, Including Google's Competitors. Any book retailer will be able to sell consumers online access to the out-of-print books covered by the settlement, including unclaimed books. Rights-holders will still receive 63% of the revenue, while retailers will keep the majority of the remaining 37%.
- Access Models. Possible additional access models to which Google and the Registry might agree in the future have been reduced and are now limited to: print-on-demand, file download, and consumer subscription.
- Pricing and the Non-Discrimination Clause. The amended settlement clarifies how Google's algorithm will work to price books competitively. The agreement also stipulates that the Registry cannot share pricing information with anyone but the book's rights-holder
Here's what Open Book Alliance co-chair Peter Brantley had to say about it: "Our initial review of the new proposal tells us that Google and its partners are performing a sleight of hand; fundamentally, this settlement remains a set-piece designed to serve the private commercial interests of Google and its partners. None of the proposed changes appear to address the fundamental flaws illuminated by the Department of Justice and other critics that impact public interest.
"By performing surgical nip and tuck, Google, the AAP, and the AG are attempting to distract people from their continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution; usurp Congress's role in setting copyright policy; lock writers into their unsought registry, stripping them of their individual contract rights; put library budgets and patron privacy at risk; and establish a dangerous precedent by abusing the class action process."
