Michael Zimmer.org

The proposed Google Book Search Settlement Agreement has been the target of numerous criticisms, not the least of which has been its incredible impact on — and incredible silence about — users’ intellectual privacy. Well before the settlement even emerged, I tried to highlight some of the privacy concerns related to the growing reliance on Google Book Search for our information-seeking needs. More recently, as the possible approval of  settlement looms, various advocacy groups have again brought attention to the fact that Google might gain even greater ability to monitor …

Dr. Pamela Samuelson has been one of the most vocal, and most intelligent, critics of the proposed Google Book Search settlement agreement. She has written, for example, on how the settlement threatens orphan works and represents a “major restructuring of the book industry,” largely to the benefit of Google, the Authors Guild and AAP, and their lawyers.
More recently, Samuelson has questioned whether the Authors Guild and AAP fairly represented the interests of all authors and publishers during the negotiations that led up to the settlement agreement. She notes:
The Authors Guild …

I shared my thoughts on privacy and the Google Book Settlement at the “Google Books Settlement and the Future of Information Access” conference organized by the UC-Berkeley School of Information. My remarks focused on my desire to trust Google when they say they’re “thinking hard” about these issues and promise to “protect readers’ privacy rights”, while noting their track record is reason enough to cause us some pause, which is why we’re pushing so hard as advocates on these vital concerns.

[Note: please be sure to read the comments with responses from Google's Alexander Macgillivray]
Joris van Hoboken recently brought this section of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement to my attention:
Section 3.7(e) Google’s Exclusion of Books
Google may, at its discretion, exclude particular Books from one or more Display Uses for editorial or non-editorial reasons. However, Google’s right to exclude Books for editorial reasons (i.e., not for quality, user experience, legal or other non-editorial reasons) is an issue of great sensitivity to Plaintiffs and Google.  Accordingly, because Plaintiffs, Google and the …

As the possible approval of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement looms, various advocacy groups have brought attention to the fact that Google might gain even greater ability to monitor the books you browse, the pages you read, and even the highlights and marginal notes you make on digital copies of books.

New York Law School professor (and fellow Yale ISP alum), James Grimmelmann, has launched The Public Index: A Website to Study and Discuss the Google Book Search Settlement. From his announcement:

The Public-Interest Book Search Initiative at New York Law School presents:
The Public Index
A Website to Study and Discuss the Google Book Search Settlement
http://thepublicindex.org
The groundbreaking proposed settlement in the Google Book Search case is so complex that controversy has outpaced conversation and questions have outnumbered answers. We aim to help close these gaps. The Public Index is a website featuring a …

I’ve written frequently about how the shift from accessing information in offline spaces to online spaces has particular privacy implications. For example, strikingly different privacy norms and expectations emerge when comparing information-seeking activities in libraries vs. bookstores vs. Google Book Search.
Today, Fred Stutzman revealed a particularly troublesome example of how relying on the “My Library” feature of Google Book Search might mean you have even less privacy with regard to your online intellectual endeavors:
I was shocked to find out that saving a book to your library requires that the book …

Siva Vaidhyanathan (a professor in my department, btw) has posted reader comments from his original request for feedback as to some of the concerns with of Google’s plan to digitize library books. He was kind enough to include my repsonse, as well as the insight of Jessamyn (who Siva describes as a “major voice in the library community”). Here’s Jessamyn’s contribution:
A lot of my concerns were summed up in this article by Wade Roush, particularly the ownership of information issue.
While I understand why Google feels entitled to dictate terms …

Siva Vaidhyanathan is working on a paper/talk about the social implications of Google’s plan to digitize library books, and asks for feedback.
The broadest issue is the widespread acceptance of the “Google paradigm” for organizing, distributing and accessing information. Google has become the “center of gravity” for information navigation and knowledge acquisition, a situation that requires critical examination.
Additionally, privacy advocates fear Google’s ability to track user’s library usage as they access texts via the Google Print project, compounding the privacy concerns related to personalized search.

Technorati tag: Google Print

InsideGoogle points to this report about a group of academic publishers concerned about Google’s plan to scan millions of library books into its Internet search engine index:
The plan “appears to involve systematic infringement of copyright on a massive scale,” wrote Peter Givler, the executive director for the New York-based trade group.
The association asked Google to respond to a list of 16 questions seeking more information about how the company plans to protect copyrights.
Two unnamed publishers already asked Google to withhold its copyrighted material from the scanners, but the company hasn’t …

This Harvard Crimson article discusses concerns that the Google Print lirary project to digitize books at Harvard’s libraries (among others) may infringe copyright law. The debate is whether Google’s digitization efforts fall within “fair use” or are “illegal duplication” (note this appears to concern only those books not yet in the public domain).
“The law does not permit wholesale copying (which is what digitisation is) by a commercial organisation of works that are still in copyright,” [Sally Morris, chief executive of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers] wrote. “It …

TechNewsWorld reports that The National Library of France is not happy with Google’s effort to scan and integrate millions of books into its Web search. Jean-Noel Jeanneney, President of the library, wrote in an editorial that he is concerned Google’s initiative to digitalize volumes at five leading libraries will reflect a unipolar worldview dominated by the English language and American culture:
“I favor a multi-polar view of the world in the 21st century,” he told the agency.
“I don’t want the French Revolution retold just by books chosen by the United States.”
France’s …