Douglas Lichtman, Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, has self-archived "Copyright as Information Policy: Google Book Search from a Law and Economics Perspective" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The copyright system has long been understood to play a critical role when it comes to the development and distribution of creative work. Copyright serves a second fundamental purpose, however: it encourages the development and distribution of related technologies like hardware that might be used to duplicate creative work and software that can manipulate it. When it comes to issues of online infringement, then, copyright policy serves two goals, not one: protect the incentives copyright has long served to provide authors, and at the same time facilitate the continued emergence of innovative Internet services and equipment. In this Chapter, I use the Google Book Search litigation as a lens through which to study copyright law’s efforts to serve these two sometimes-competing masters. The Google case is an ideal lens for this purpose because both the technology implications and the authorship implications are apparent. With respect to the technology, Google tells us that the only way for it to build its Book Search engine is to have copyright law excuse the infringement that is today by design part of the project. With respect to authorship, copyright owners are resisting that result for fear that the infringement here could significantly erode both author control and author profitability over the long run. I myself am optimistic that copyright law can and will balance these valid concerns. The Chapter explains how, discussing not only the formal legal rules but also the economic intuitions behind them.

In "DOJ Says No to Google Book Settlement," noted copyright expert Pamela Samuelson examines the U.S. Department of Justice's Google Book Search Settlement filing.

Here's an excerpt:

Among the most significant recommendations DOJ made for modifying the Proposed Settlement is one to ameliorate the risk of market foreclosure as to institutional subscriptions. DOJ suggests the parties should find a way to "provide some mechanism by which Google's competitors could gain comparable access to orphan works." That is, DOJ is recommending that Google, the Authors Guild and the publishers find a way to let firms such as Amazon.com and Microsoft get comparable licenses to out-of-print books, particularly to orphans. Google has previously denied that it was possible to include competitors in any license granted through the settlement. It will be interesting to see if the litigants want the settlement badly enough to conjure up a way to extend the license to firms other than Google.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed an objection to the Google Book Search Settlement.

Here's an excerpt:

Nonetheless, the breadth of the Proposed Settlement—especially the forward-looking business arrangements it seeks to create—raises significant legal concerns. As a threshold matter, the central difficulty that the Proposed Settlement seeks to overcome—the inaccessibility of many works due to the lack of clarity about copyright ownership and copyright status—is a matter of public, not merely private, concern. A global disposition of the rights to millions of copyrighted works is typically the kind of policy change implemented through legislation, not through a private judicial settlement. If such a significant (and potentially beneficial) policy change is to be made through the mechanism of a class action settlement (as opposed to legislation), the United States respectfully submits that this Court should undertake a particularly searching analysis to ensure that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23") are met and that the settlement is consistent with copyright law and antitrust law. As presently drafted, the Proposed Settlement does not meet the legal standards this Court must apply.

This Memorandum sets forth the concerns of the United States with respect to the current version of the Proposed Settlement; these concerns may be obviated by the parties' subsequent changes to the agreement. Commenters' objections to the Proposed Settlement fall into three basic categories: (1) claims that the Proposed Settlement fails to satisfy Rule 23; (2) claims that the Proposed Settlement would violate copyright law; and (3) claims that the Proposed Settlement would violate antitrust law. In the view of the United States, each category of objection is serious in isolation, and, taken together, raise cause for concern. . . .

This Court should reject the Proposed Settlement in its current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it so as to comply with Rule 23 and the copyright and antitrust laws.

Read more about it at "Do Justice Department Objections Spell Doom for Google's Online Book Deal?," "DOJ: Court Should Reject Google Book Search Settlement," and "Government Urges Changes to Google Books Deal."

Google has signed an agreement with On Demand Books, maker of the print-on-demand Espresso Book Machine, giving it access to over two million public domain e-books.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

This unprecedented number of reading options is in addition to the current 1.6 million titles already available directly to consumers via the Espresso Book Machine®. The Espresso Book Machine® is a small, patented high-speed automated book- making machine. In a few minutes it can print, bind and trim a single-copy library- quality paperback book complete with a full-color paperback cover. "ODB, in effect an ATM for books, will radically decentralize direct-to-consumer distribution," says Jason Epstein, Chairman and co-founder of ODB."With the Google inventory the EBM will make it possible for readers everywhere to have access to millions of digital titles in multiple languages, including rare and out of print public domain titles."

"This is a revolutionary product," says Dane Neller, CEO and co founder of ODB."Instead of the traditional Gutenberg model of centrally producing, shipping and selling we sell first, then produce. In a matter of minutes you can get a paperback book identical to one you can get in a store at point of sale. In addition to readers, On Demand Books will bring substantial benefits to authors, retailers and publishers. It has the potential to change the publishing industry."

The Espresso Book Machine® is powered by EspressNet, a proprietary and copyrighted software system that connects EBM to a vast network of permissioned content. Using industry-standard encryption methods EspressNet assures the security of publishers' titles, tracks all jobs, and provides for payments to publishers. Content owners retain full ownership and control of their digital files. . . .

Espresso Book Machines® already are up and running in bookstores, libraries and trade and campus bookstores such as the University of Michigan Shapiro Library Building in Ann Arbor, MI, the Blackwell Bookshop in London, UK, the Bibliotheca Alexandria in Alexandria, Egypt, the Northshire Bookstore in Manchester Center, VT, the University of Alberta Bookstore in Edmonton, Canada and Angus & Robertson Bookstore in Melbourne, Australia. The Harvard Book Store in Cambridge, MA and the University of Melbourne Library in Melbourne, Australia soon will carry their own EBM.

NPR has released a digital audio recording and transcript of an interview with Daphne Keller (Google), Fred Von Lohmann (EFF), and Jessica Vascellaro (Wall Street Journal) about the Google Book Search Settlement.

Here's an excerpt:

[Von Lohmann] Unlike a bookstore or even a library, because these books will live online on Google's computers, where you will be accessing them, Google will have the ability to watch every page you read, how long you spend on any particular page, what page you read a minute ago and what page you're going to read a week from now. It really is as though every book comes with a surveillance camera that comes home with you. So we think it's really critical that this arrangement builds in real strong privacy protections because our nation's bookstores and libraries have fought hard for that, and we think we should accept no less online.

The University of Michigan Press has opted in to the Google Book Search Settlement.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

University of Michigan Press has decided to opt in to the terms of the Settlement and is beginning the process of claiming books digitized by Google under its Book Search program. We will claim all titles under copyright on behalf of our authors.

The Association of Research Libraries has released "Summary on House Committee on the Judiciary Hearing: 'Competition and Commerce in Digital Books' (Sept. 10, '09)."

Here's an excerpt:

The panel of witnesses was evenly divided on these issues, with four unequivocally in favor of the settlement, including representatives from Google and the Authors Guild. Three witnesses were unequivocally opposed, including Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters and a representative from Amazon.com. The eighth witness, law professor Randall Picker of the University of Chicago, was ambivalent and suggested several changes that he felt would cure potential problems with the Settlement. A complete list of witnesses appears on the last page of this summary, with hyperlinks to the written testimony of each witness.

A digital video of David C. Drummond, Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer at Google, testifying at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on "Competition and Commerce in Digital Books" is available on YouTube.

Version 5 of the Google Book Search Bibliography is now available from Digital Scholarship.

This bibliography presents selected English-language articles and other works that are useful in understanding Google Book Search. It primarily focuses on the evolution of Google Book Search and the legal, library, and social issues associated with it. Where possible, links are provided to works that are freely available on the Internet, including e-prints in disciplinary archives and institutional repositories. Note that e-prints and published articles may not be identical.

The following recent Digital Scholarship publications may also be of interest:

• Electronic Theses and Dissertations Bibliography, Version 4 (7/15/2009)
• Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2008 Annual Edition (7/10/2009)
• Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, Version 76 (9/8/2009)

The American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries have submitted a supplemental filing regarding the Google Book Search Settlement.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

While the library associations' position has not changed since their initial filing, the groups believe that recent activity, such as an amended agreement reached between Google and the University of Michigan, the University of Texas-Austin and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Google's recent public statement regarding privacy, and the library associations' communication with the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) should be brought to the court's attention. In their supplemental filing, the library associations call upon the court to address concerns with pricing review, to direct Google to provide more detail on privacy issues, and to broaden representation on the Books Rights Registry.

The Federal Republic of Germany has filed a lengthy objection to the Google Book Search Settlement.

Here's an excerpt:

The proposed Settlement also attempts to characterize itself as applying to actions taken only within the United States and, hence, without impact in other countries where U.S. copyright rules do not apply. Nowhere is this more clearly incorrect than in the realm of making the books available over the Internet. . . .

Privacy is another key area of conflict. The proposed Settlement has few provisions protecting the privacy of authors, publishers or users. In sharp contrast, Germany strongly protects the privacy of individuals who use the Internet through the Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz or "BDSG") of 1990, as amended in 2009, and the Telemedia Act (Telemediengesetz or "TMG") of 2007, as amended in 2009. . . .

The proposed Settlement raises an even more fundamental issue of fairness, causing concern that German authors may find their own voices unheard. The plaintiff Authors Guild, representative of the author sub-class, cannot adequately and fairly represent German authors or their interests because of its limitations on membership. For an author to join the Authors Guild, he or she must have been published by an established American publisher. . . .

Similarly, the plaintiff Association of American Publishers does not adequately and fairly represent German publishers or their interests because its membership is only open to "all U.S. companies actively engaged in the publication of books, journals, and related electronic media." . . .

For the reasons summarized above [the text has more objections than those abridged here], the proposed Settlement will have an immediate impact upon German authors, publishers and digital libraries by setting a industry-changing precedent that not only gives defendant Google an unfair advantage over all other digital libraries (commercial and non-commercial) in the United States and Germany, but also will flout German laws that have been established to protect German authors and publishers, including with respect to digital copying, publishing and the dissemination of their works. The decision of this Court with respect to this Settlement will have the dramatic and long-range effect of creating a new worldwide copyright regime without any input from those who will be greatly impacted — German authors, publishers and digital libraries and German citizens who seek to obtain access to digital publications through the Google service.

In "Google's Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars," Geoffrey Nunberg examines the limitations of Google Book Search's metadata, which he calls "a train wreck: a mishmash wrapped in a muddle wrapped in a mess."