There is mounting concern in somequarters that the Google Book Search settlement (see previous posts here, here, and here) could have anticompetitive effects. Everyone (including Google) seems to agree that, all else being equal, we shouldn't want a world where Google is the only entity that is scanning and providing online access to books, particularly the majority of out-of-print books whose owners can't be found (i.e., "orphan works").
So what would be necessary to create a marketplace with an opportunity for real competition? Obviously, entities other than Google will have to be able to get the same kind of blanket copyright license on comparable terms. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement makes Google the only company that can get a blanket license that covers orphan works — that issue has received considerableattention.
But those who are worried about market entry and long-term competition in this arena should also be thinking about another thing competitors need: access to the scans themselves.
The raw scans themselves should not be subject to copyright protection. But if Google hoards the scans, preventing bulk copying (with either legal or technical measures), then competitors will be forced to spend millions to re-scan the very same books in order to compete with Google. This not only is a barrier to entry, but also entails enormous long-term social waste — do we really want a world where every book needs to be re-scanned, over and over, by anyone who wants to enter this market?
Of course, Google (and anyone else) who wants to undertake the expensive task of scanning books should be entitled to some opportunity to recoup their costs. But it's hard to see why that should translate into an eternal barrier to entry for others. It makes no sense to require the 5th or 10th or 99th newcomer to spend millions to scan books that have already been scanned multiple times.
One good compromise might be to require that anyone who takes a blanket license (whether under the Google Book Search settlement, or under any legislation that might expand the settlement to others) must deposit a copy of the raw scans that they create with the Library of Congress or with the entity that administers the blanket license (e.g., the Books Rights Registry). After a period of years, let's say 14, the term of the Founder's Copyright, those scans should be made available at no cost to any others who take the relevant copyright licenses.
This would not only encourage market entry and competition in the online digital books arena, but would also foster innovation in the field. There's nothing that encourages digital innovation quite like access to an enormous dataset....
It makes no economic sense for us to force every future pair of graduate students who want to experiment with the book dataset to spend those hundreds of millions of dollars before they can launch their new startup. On the other hand, Google deserves some fair reward for navigating the obstacles and getting the books scanned. A compromise like a 14-year escrow rule might be just the way to achieve that.
Comments
I like this idea very much, and not just because it supports OA and not just because it's a compromise that stands a chance of being adopted. Many, and perhaps most, of the books Google is scanning are provided by public universities and libraries which acquired and curated them using public funds. (Even the private universities and libraries providing books are supported by public subsidies through untaxed property and tax deductible contributions.) Eckersley's argument that the job is too large to repeat is sound --i.e. the non-exclusivity of Google's rights is just a formality. But it can be buttressed by the argument that the public already has an investment in this project and should get more out of it than the opportunity to buy access from a new private monopoly.
By my count, it's the third proposal for building support for OA into the Google Book Settlement. For the others, see (1) Charlie Nesson's proposal from April that a cut of the revenue from Google-scanned orphan works should fund an Open Access Trust, and (2) the proposal from Germany's Coalition for Action: Copyright for Education and Research (Aktionsbündnis: Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft), earlier this month, that Google should support OA for non-commercial purposes for at least some Google-scanned books. If I'm missing any, please drop me a line.
Update. Jennifer Howard tells me that in her podcast interview with Google's Adam Smith (June 15, 2009), she asked whether Google could be persuaded to put CC licenses on its scanned books. Smith said it would, if that's what authors wanted.
Good question, good answer. It's a start, even if comparatively few authors are interested in CC-based OA for their books. Google should build this option into the settlement, set up a way for authors to register their interest, and then (if the settlement is approved) carry it out.
On the other hand, we're not likely to get a large volume of OA from the Google settlement unless it comes from the orphan works, where we'll never know what the authors want.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 6/17/2009 02:04:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
