In "Warrants Required: EFF and Google's Big Disagreement about Google Book Search," Cindy Cohn discusses the Electronic Frontier Foundation's concerns over privacy issues in Google Book Search.

Here's an excerpt:

One of the most important of those protections is the assurance that your browsing and reading habits are safe from fishing expeditions by the government or lawyers in civil cases. In order to maintain freedom of inquiry and thought, the books we search for, browse, and read should simply be unavailable for use against us in a court of law except in the rarest of circumstances. We have other concerns about Google Book Search as well—concerns and data collection, retention, and reader anonymity—so this won't end the debate, but safeguards against disclosure are a central point of concern for us. . . .

Given this backdrop, we asked Google to promise that it would fight for those same standards to be applied to its Google Book Search product. . . .

Unfortunately, Google has refused. It is insisting on keeping broad discretion to decide when and where it will actually stand up for user privacy, and saying that we should just trust the company to do so. So, if Bob looks like a good guy, maybe they'll stand up for him. But if standing up for Alice could make Google look bad, complicate things for the company, or seem ill-advised for some other reason, then Google insists on having the leeway to simply hand over her reading list after a subpoena or some lesser legal process. As Google Book Search grows, the pressure on Google to compromise readers' privacy will likely grow too, whether from government entities that have to approve mergers or investigate antitrust complaints, or subpoenas from companies where Google has a business relationship, or for some other reason that emerges over time.

Ruth Okediji, Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, has self-archived "The Regulation of Creativity Under the WIPO Internet Treaties" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WIPO Internet Treaties) recite a need for a digital copyright framework to facilitate 'adequate solutions to questions raised by new economic, social, cultural and technological developments.' It can hardly be contested that the social and cultural developments to which the Treaties refer do not derive from the cultural or economic conditions (much less technological developments) of the developing and least-developed countries. Consistent with their predecessors, the WIPO Internet Treaties marginalize collaborative forms of creative engagement with which citizens in the global South have long identified and continue in the tradition of assuming that copyright’s most enduring cannons are culturally neutral. Recently, however, the rise of Web 2.0 and the salience of new forms of creativity mediated by digital technologies and social networking sites have exposed structural tensions in copyright laws of OECD countries similar to those which developing countries have historically raised in opposition to the Berne Convention. This Essay reviews the evolution of the WIPO Internet Treaties and argues that the framework established just over a decade ago is increasingly less relevant in addressing the challenges of creativity in the digital age. The Treaties do not provide a meaningful basis for a harmonized approach to encourage new creative forms in much the same way the Berne Convention fell short of embracing diversity in patterns and modes of authorial expression. The growing social and legal recognition of new forms of creativity enabled through digital technologies offers an important opportunity to challenge anew claims that globally mandated copyright norms can effect incentives to create that are relevant across geographical, cultural and technological boundaries.

According to an 8/18/09 article in La Tribune, "Google en Négociation avec la Bibliothèque Nationale de France," the BnF was negotiating a deal with Google to digitize its collection.

Amid a brewing controversy about the alleged deal, the BnF issued a press release to clarify the issue.

Here's an excerpt from the press release (translated using Google Translate):

Following a news item published in Tuesday August 18 The Tribune, the BnF wishes to clarify that it has not signed an agreement with Google for digitization of its collection. The Library has never ruled out a private partnership would be consistent with the strategy of the Ministry of Culture regarding digital content and respect the principles of free and freedom access to works exclusively free for use. BnF reminded that, thanks to government support with the NLC, it has embarked on a program of large-scale digitization of its Collections: 100,000 printed per year over three years and a large selection of rare and valuable documents (books, manuscripts, prints . . .). Readily available on the public site Gallica, these Documents feed-Free Europeana naturally, the European digital library.

At the same time, a unique partnership in the world has been up with the French publishers to bring an offer of legal books Digital law and under permit from Gallica, find easily links to their marketing platforms.

Read more about it at "French Library Denies 'Google Seduction' Claims," "Google Breaks into French National Library," and "Google Bruises Gallic Pride as National Library Does Deal with Search Giant"

In "The Undiscussed Danger to Libraries in the Google Books Settlement," Peter Hirtle discusses the printing fees that libraries may have deal with as a result of the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement.

Here's an excerpt:

Here is the kicker: if the library charges a fee for printing (and how many libraries can allow users to print for free?), then they are required by Section 4.8(a)(ii) of the Agreement to charge users for the printing. Google will collect the money on behalf of libraries and pass it on to the Registry. Google has agreed to pay the cost of the printing for the first five years or $3 million, whichever comes first.

The U.S. Department of Justice has submitted a brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota supporting the $1.92 million statutory damages award that Jammie Thomas-Rasset must pay for illegally sharing 24 songs ($80,000 per song).

Read more about it at "DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 per Song Unconstitutional or Oppressive," "Justice Department Defends Massive File-Swapping Fine," and "US Govt Says $1.92M P2P Damage Award Totally Fair."

Presentations from the Council of Science Editors 2009 meeting are now available.

Some sessions of interest include:

• D2. The Evidence on Open Access
• D3. Copyright, Open Access, Subscriptions, and Permissions: What Editors Need to Know in the New Digital Publishing Environment
• E2. How to Deal with Funding Mandates
• G2. Challenges of Creating Digital Libraries: Digitizing, Organizing, Storing, and Accessing Content

Members of the University of California's Academic Council and the chair of the Academic Senate’s Committee on Libraries and Scholarly Communication have submitted a letter about the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Here's an excerpt:

We have three main concerns about the proposed settlement agreement. First, to maximize access to knowledge, prices should be reasonable. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement agreement contains inadequate checks and balances to prevent price gouging and unduly restrictive terms for purchasers of books and institutional subscribers. Second, the agreement does not contemplate or make provision for open access choices that have in recent years become common among academic authorial communities, especially with regard to out of print books. The settlement agreement only contemplates that authors would monetize their books and related metadata through the Book Rights Registry (BRR). This is especially worrisome as to the millions of out of print, and likely orphan, books. Third, the agreement contemplates some monitoring of user queries and uses of books in the Book Search corpus that negatively impinge on significant privacy interests of authors and readers and undermine fundamental academic freedom principles.

Read more about it at "U.C. Professors Seek Changes to Google Books Deal."

In "Bringing the Power of Creative Commons to Google Books," Xian Ke, Associate Product Manager of Google Books, describes Google's new Creative Commons license options for rights holders, and indicates that, in the future, users will be able to restrict searches to works that have such licenses. Users will be able to download complete Creative Commons licensed books, and if the license permits, modify them.

Matthew Sag, Associate Professor at the DePaul University College of Law, has self-archived "The Google Book Settlement and the Fair Use Counterfactual" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

In the wake of the proposed Settlement, the Google Book debate has shifted away from the merits of book digitization, and refocused on questions of commoditization and control. This Article highlights four critical areas in which the Settlement differs sharply from the predicted fair use ruling. First, the Settlement permits Google to engage in a significant range of uses including the complete electronic distribution of books that go well beyond fair use. Second, the Settlement provides for initial cash payments by Google to the copyright owners and a fairly generous revenue sharing agreement, neither of which would have been required under a fair use ruling. Third, the agreement creates a new set of institutional arrangements that will govern the relationship between Google and the copyright owners covered by the Settlement. The foundations of this new institutional framework are the Settlement agreement itself, the creation of a collective rights management organization called the "Book Rights Registry" and the "Author Publisher Procedures." The fourth area in which the Settlement differs from the likely fair use outcome relates to the accessibility, commoditization and control of orphan works.

In "The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement," noted copyright expert Pamela Samuelson examines the Google Book Search Settlement.

Here's an excerpt:

However, much larger questions call into question whether the settlement should be approved. One is whether the Authors Guild and AAP fairly represented the interests of all authors and publishers of in-copyright books during the negotiations that led up to the settlement agreement. A second is whether going forward, they and the newly created Registry to which they will give birth will fairly represent the interests of those on whose behalf the Registry will be receiving revenues from Google.

The Association of Research Libraries has released "Google Book Settlement Information For Faculty and Scholars."

Also see "Will Your Book Be in Google?"

ACRL, ALA, ARL have submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division about the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement.

Here's an excerpt from the press release :

The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) sent a letter to William Cavanaugh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division yesterday, requesting the Division to advise the court presiding over the Google Book Settlement to supervise the implementation of the settlement closely, particularly the pricing of institutional subscriptions and the selection of the Book Rights Registry board members.

The letter, which was sent following a meeting the library groups had with the Antitrust Division, also recommended that the Division itself actively monitor the parties' compliance with the settlement's provisions.

In particular, the library groups urged the Division to ask the court to review pricing of institutional subscriptions whenever the Division concludes that the prices do not meet the economic objectives set forth in the settlement. In order to evaluate the price of an institutional subscription, the groups believe the Division should have access to all relevant price information from Google and the Registry.

The library associations assert that the Division should ask the court to review any refusal by the Registry to license copyrights in books on the same terms available to Google and to also review the selection process for the Registry Board to ensure the interests of all rightsholders are considered.