Google Book Search Settlement Receiving Criticism

waderoush writes "While James Gleick, Lawrence Lessig, and other pundits have reacted positively to this week's proposed settlement of the publishing industry's lawsuit against Google over the Google Book Search project, a deeper study of the agreement turns up some worrisome provisions that could make online access to books much more costly and difficult than it needs to be. Harvard University's libraries, for example, declined to endorse the settlement over concerns that it provides no mechanism for keeping the cost of access to books reasonable. And while the parties to the settlement have made much of the clause providing public libraries with free full-text access to Google's database of over 7 million out-of-print books, Xconomy has a post pointing out that this access is restricted to exactly one Google terminal per library. So, you can read books for free — as long as you're the first person to get to your public library's computer room in the morning."

Comments

Re:Common sense revolts

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And yet, by exactly the same argument, common sense should revolt at the idea that I can't walk from my own back yard through to the shops via my neighbours' back yards, nor they to the main road through mine. In days long ago, man had no concept of private property, and anyone was free to walk to the river to fetch water or walk to the woods to go hunting by the most convenient route. At some point, society started to recognise the concepts of private property, a home, a personal space. It is actually rather disappointing that a non-argument based on unspecified public good and "common sense" is the basis for such a fundamental court judgement.