Google's plan to scan "orphan books" into its ever-growing database of digital texts has led a watchdog group to call on the U.S. Department of Justice to step into the matter. Critics say that Google is in a position to exert a virtual monopoly over digitized books, and prevent Microsoft, Yahoo or any other future competitors from offering more advantageous terms to authors.Google's
recent and far-flung attempt to digitize the world's "orphan" books, or
out-of-print tomes that remain under copyright but whose rights-holders cannot
be found, may soon hit a roadblock in the form of the U.S. Department of Justice,
at least if a consumer group gets its wish.
John Simpson, a consumer
advocate for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization,
wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asking the government to
intervene in Googles recent settlement with The Authors Guild and the
Association of American Publishers (AAP).
That settlement over
Google's digital book-scanning, Simpson wrote, affects the publishing industry
too sweepingly to have been closed without any sort of government review.
"Because the settlement
was negotiated between the parties in a class action suit, there has
been
little opportunity to represent the interests of consumers," Simpson
explained. "This deal furthers the relatively narrow agenda of Google,
The Authors Guild
and the Association of American Publishers."
The terms of the
settlement create a nonprofit Book Rights Registry to handle digital rights
issues. It includes a "most favored nation clause" guaranteeing Google the same
terms as any future competitor, such as Yahoo
or Microsoft,
which might attempt to negotiate for rights.
"It is inappropriate for the
resolution of a class action lawsuit to effectively create an 'anti-compete'
clause," Simpson said, "which precludes smaller competitors from entering a
market."
Neither does the group
think that Googles plan for orphan works is acceptable.
"The danger of using such works is that a
rights holder will emerge after the book has been exploited and demand substantial
infringement penalties," the letter continues. "The proposed settlement
protects Google from such potentially damaging exposure, but provides no
protection for others. This effectively
is a barrier for competitors to enter the digital book business."
In a posting on the
Google Books site, the company said that the orphan
books program will give authors and publishers a higher degree of granular
control.
"When this agreement is approved, every
out-of-print book that we digitize will become available online for preview and
purchase, unless its author or publisher chooses to 'turn off' that title," the
site notes. "We believe it will be a tremendous boon to the publishing industry
to enable authors and publishers to earn money from volumes they might have
thought were gone forever from the marketplace."
Nonetheless, organizations ranging from the American
Library Association to intellectual property experts have raised concerns over
the settlement.
Google has been making some aggressive moves in the
digitized book space.
On March 19, Google
and Sony announced that Google would make its free public-domain eBooks
available on the Sony Reader, effectively increasing the size of Sonys
eLibrary by 600,000 books.
It was the first time that Google had made its
scanned books, downloadable in PDF format, available for an eReader in ePub
format.
Google is also facing another legal tussle over a
trademark lawsuit by Rescuecom Corp, over ads linked to keyword searches.
A U.S. appeals court ruled on April 3 that Google should
continue to defend itself against the computer repair company, which alleged in
the original suit that Google had recommended a competitor to attract customers to
their site by using Rescuecoms trademark as a keyword.
Google countered that its use of Rescuecoms
trademark with regard to the competitor was an internal one, and thus exempt
from any commerce-infringement argument.
The appeals court seemed to agree, stating in a
written decision that "Google's recommendation and sale of Rescuecoms mark to
its advertising customers are not internal uses."