To follow this thread read from the bottom entry beginning 06/01/09.

____________________________________________

December 2009

For writers who are concerned about the impact of the Goggle Settlement, which even now is still being ironed out, I thought this piece in GalleyCat might be illuminating.

Google Books Confidential

11/16/09  Google Settlement Conclusion on the Horizon

As the Google Settlement goes into a new — and likely final — phase this latest round up of essays and articles on it has been issued by the Authors Guild and might be worth checking out for those interested.

Tim Wu, a Columbia Law professor and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer specializes in copyright law and telecommunications policy and is best known online as the popularizer of the net neutrality movement.  He’s also chairman of the board of Free Press, a nonprofit dedicated, among other things, to combating media monopolies.  For those wary of Google, his concluding paragraph is worth reading:  
“But if you want to put Google in its place, the book project is the wrong way to do so.  It is Google’s monopoly on Internet search that is valuable and potentially dangerous, not a quixotic project to provide access to unpopular books.  So hold on to that sense of wariness, but understand that in this case, it’s misplaced.  To punish Google by killing Book Search would be like punishing Andrew Carnegie by blowing up Carnegie Hall.”

Here’s Mr. Wu’s article in Slate.  
Here are comments from other publications:

The Economist:

New York Times:

Washington Post:

Here is the Authors Guild take on how the amended Settlement is shaping up.

1. Smaller Class; Representation of Foreign Countries on Registry Board.  We’ve narrowed down the class to authors and publishers of works registered in the U.S. and authors and publishers of works published in the three other countries that have contributed the largest number of English-language works to American libraries: Australia, Canada, and the U.K.  Each of these countries will have an author and a publisher seat on the Book Rights Registry board.

2. Independent Fiduciary for Unclaimed Works.  An independent fiduciary approved by the court will be solely responsible for decisions regarding unclaimed works.

3. Unclaimed Funds Held for up to 10 Years, Will Go Only to Charities and Finding Rightsholders.  The Book Rights Registry will now hold unclaimed funds for ten years, instead of five.  (After five years, one-quarter of the unclaimed funds can be earmarked for finding rightsholders.)  There will be no distribution of any of the unclaimed funds to claiming rightsholders.  Instead, unclaimed funds will go to charities in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and Australia as determined by court order after 10 years.

4. Elimination of “Most-Favored Nation” Clause, Restrictions on Discounting.  The so-called “most-favored nation” clause is out (if you don’t know what it is, no need to get up to speed on it).  Also out are various restrictions on discounting by Google.  Authors will get their cut, regardless: Google’s discounts still come out of its own pocket.

5. Well-Defined Future Potential Business Models.  Future business models have been pared down to three: individual subscriptions, print-on-demand, and digital downloads.  None of these business models can be implemented by Google without approval of the Registry’s board, and none can be implemented without notice to all claiming rightsholders, who will have the absolute right not to participate.  (The Unclaimed Works Fiduciary, of course, will determine whether unclaimed works will participate in any future business models.)  Note: this doesn’t affect the previously well-defined business models that get the green light on approval of the settlement — ad-supported previews, consumer online editions, page-fees for print-outs from public access terminals, and institutional subscriptions.

6. Plenty of Time.  There’s extra time to make claims for the $60 to $300 per book digitization payments — it’s been extended to March 31, 2011.  There’s also plenty of time to remove your works from Google’s database: you can ponder this until March 9, 2012.  (Remember, we don’t recommend removal, since it’s irreversible: you’ll remove yourself from this market forever.)

What hasn’t changed?  Almost everything else.

The settlement still provides these benefits to authors:

Find new readers.  Out-of-print books need no longer be relegated to the used book market.  The settlement will make out-of-print works available to hundreds of millions of readers, through ad-supported previews, sales of online editions, and institutional subscriptions.  If a book catches on, there will be sales data to prove it, which may create an opportunity to bring the work back into print in traditional form.

In-print books are unaffected.  A cardinal rule in the negotiations was not to disturb the market for in-print books.  Titles that are in print won’t be made available through any of the means described in the settlement, unless the author and publisher expressly want them to be.

A Book Rights Registry to protect rightsholders.  A non-profit registry governed by authors and publishers will oversee the settlement on their behalf, to help make sure rightsholders receive the benefits they’re entitled to.  (Sign up for the Registry by filing a claim at googlebooksettlement.com.)

A fair share of revenues.  63% of gross revenues go to authors and publishers; Google keeps 37%.  The funds will be paid to the new Book Rights Registry, which will pay authors and publishers after retaining a modest administrative fee.  If rights have reverted to authors, they will receive 100% of the rightsholder revenue.

Unprecedented control for authors and publishers.  Authors and publishers will manage their rights through an account management page at the Book Rights Registry.  Authors who control rights to their works, for example, may choose to allow Google to display ad-supported previews of books, sell online editions (authors may set the price or let an algorithm do it for them), and license the work to colleges and universities, or they may choose to block all display uses.  Authors can change their minds, at any time, with reasonable notice.  What if a book comes back into traditional print?  The rightsholder can then simply turn off all display uses, if it chooses, and permit the publisher to sell the work through standard retail outlets.

Authors’ estates, too.  Authors’ estates exercise the same rights as authors.

At least $45 million in payments for unauthorized scanning.  Any of Google’s digitizing of in-copyright books done before May 5, 2009 is considered unauthorized under the settlement.  Google will pay to obtain a release of these copyright infringement claims.  Under the settlement, Google will pay at least $60 and as much as $300 to rightsholders for each book that it scanned without authority, for a total payment to rightsholders of at least $45 million.

___________________________

Judge Chin Orders Google Case Parties to Oct. 7 Status Conference

September 25, 2009

From Publishers Marketplace by Michael Cader

The judge has agreed to the request to not hold a full hearing on the proposed settlement on October 7 “as it does not appear that the current settlement will be the operative one.” But he doesn’t want to wait another month to learn the status of negotiations, as the Authors Guild and AAP had asked. At the October conference he wants “to determine how to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible, as this case has now been pending for over four years.” While Chin will not hear from any other petitioners at the hearing, “they are free to attend.”

The order reinforces the impatience the judge has show in other rulings, and might dampen the idea that he would forestall any final ruling on whatever settlement is presented to him in the hopes of producing further changes.

Judge Chin’s note gives equal weight to both sides expressed so far: “The current settlement raises significant issues, as demonstrated not only by the number of objections, but also by the fact that the objectors include countries, states, non-profit organizations, and prominent authors and law professors. Clearly, fair concerns have been raised.”

But “on the other hand, the proposed settlement would offer many benefits to society, as recognized by supporters of the settlement as well as the Department of Justice. It would appear that if a fair and reasonable settlement can be struck, the public would benefit.”

___________________________

September 10, 2009

From Publishers Marketplace, by Michael Cader

Some Google Requests Take It on the Chin; Congress Has No Questions for Publishers As Copyright Office Protests

In what could be viewed as a signal that Judge Denny Chin is ready for resolution on the Google Books Settlement case, yesterday he quickly denied two motions from opponents. In both rulings, Chin emphasized the view that there has been plenty of time for investigation and expression.

Judge Chin swatted away efforts by Lewis Hyde, Harry Lewis and the Open Access Trust to formally intervene for the second time (they were first turned down in April), writing: “This case was filed some four years ago and has been conditionally settled; it is simply too late to permit new parties into the case.” He did add that “the Court will, however, consider the objections raised by the proposed interveners.”

Chin also denied the “various discovery requests” of the Bloom Objectors,  saying they “have had ample time to seek discovery” and adding that “the Court will not, at this late stage, allow the proceedings to be delayed.”

At the least, reasonable people could conclude that this same attitude means the Judge will probably not be swayed by the many objections of publishers from other countries that notice of the settlement was inadequate. (In other news, NY Senator Chuck Schumer intends to nominate Judge Chin to the Second Circuit’s Court of Appeals.)

Today the spotlight is on the House Judiciary Committee on Competition and Commerce in Digital Books. We were fascinated to see that the list of eight witnesses does not include a single publisher. Scheduled to appear were: David Drummond of Google; Paul Misener from Amazon; Paul Aiken from the Authors Guild; Marybeth Peters from the US Copyright Office; Marc Maurer at the National Federation of the Blind; John Simpson from Consumer Watchdog; Randal C. Picker from the University of Chicago Law School; and David Balto at the Center for American Progress.

You can follow glimpses of testimony via Twitter for now.

A Reuters article previewed David Drummond’s argument that “We believe anyone who wants to re-use abandoned works should have a fair, legal way to do so. In our view, the settlement helps.”

Early posts indicates Representative Zoe Lofgren commenting that we wouldn’t be here if Congress got orphan works right–but we failed, and also saying she was distressed to receive testimony from Copyright Office only this morning. Committee Chairman, Representative John Conyers is said to have remarked that this could be the greatest innovation in publishing since the Gutenberg press, and also noting that while the proposed settlement would give Google has exclusive access to orphan works, that can be remedied by legislation.

But Marybeth Peters at the Copyright Office is cited as complaining that “Key parts of the settlement are fundamentally at odds with the law.” In a letter to the committee, Peters says in multiple ways that Congress should be concerned about the settlement’s attempt to resolve issues that Congress itself has not acted on: “In the view of the Copyright Office, the settlement proposed by the parties would encroach on responsibility for copyright policy that traditionally has been the domain of Congress…. We are greatly concerned by the parties’ end run around legislative process and prerogatives, and we submit that this Committee should be equally concerned.” Peters reiterates the position that it “would inappropriately interfere with the on-going efforts of Congress to enact orphan works legislation in a manner that takes into account the concerns of all stakeholders as well as the United States’ international obligations.”

Meanwhile, though the court’s filing deadline has passed, their electronic document system continues to add additional papers. Among them the Center for Democracy & Technology noted their support of the settlement, while Questia filed a complaint along the lines of Google-is-ruining-our-business-and-won’t -even-link-to-us.

An informal group called the Privacy Authors and Publishers–including Michael Chabon, Ayelet Waldman, Jonathan Lethem, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Cory Doctorow, the EFF, and the ACLU and Cleis Press filed an objection, saying the settlement “fails to safeguard reader privacy.” Stretching their argument to fit as an objection from within the author and publisher classes, they “believe that the lack of privacy protections in the current settlement will deter readers and thereby harm their expressive and financial interests in sustaining and building a readership that browses, reviews, and purchases their works.”

___________________________

Authors Guild Slams Amazon Over Its Google Settlement Stance; Other Groups Opt Out of Settlement

By Andrew Albanese — Publishers Weekly, 9/3/2009 7:50:00 AM

After Amazon came out against the Google Settlement earlier this week, the Authors Guild has come back with a letter slamming the e-tailer, claiming that “Amazon’s hypocrisy is breathtaking.” The Guild likened Amazon’s control of bookselling and the up-and-coming e-book market to a choke-hold, noting that everyone is waiting for the moment when the company will stop selling e-books at a loss and start to “squeeze publishers and authors” when everyone is locked in to the Kindle. The Guild said that, sadly, the Google plan won’t infringe on Amazon’s control of the business: “Amazon needn’t worry, really: this agreement is about out-of-print books. Its lock on the online distribution of in-print books, unfortunately, seems secure.”

Amazon’s Google comments are just a few of the many to be filed this week as the settlement approaches September 4, the first key deadline in the settlement process and the date by which copyright owners who want out of the settlement must opt out or object. As expected, objectors and opt outs have been pouring in. This week attorneys for a group of some 60 authors, including literary scholar Harold Bloom, confirmed they would object to the settlement and asked to appear at the October 7 fairness hearing. In addition, the Open Book Alliance—a broad coalition of Google competitors, including Microsoft and Yahoo, as well as author organizations and library groups—announced its opposition. Library groups, meanwhile, filed a supplemental brief urging the court to look at a number of things, including privacy, and yesterday, Seven Stories Press announced it would opt out of the settlement.

Click here to read more

___________________________

September 2nd, 2009

Amazon knocks Google Book Settlement; Opposition (and some support) lines up

Posted by Larry Dignan @ 3:18 pm

Amazon panned Google’s book settlement with the Author’s Guild saying that the deal “restrains competition” and “usurps the role of Congress in legislating solutions” as copyright and new technologies collide.

Amazon’s rebuttal, which can be downloaded here (PDF), is one of many arguments against the Google Book Settlement that have been filed over the last two days. Google was sued in 2005 by authors and publishers for infringing on copyrights as the search giant moved to digitize books. Google later settledwith authors and publishers for $125 million and agreed to set up a registry to ensure copyright owners would be compensated.

Also see: A spirited defense of the Google Book Search settlement

Open Book Alliances opens up assault on Google’s book settlement

Meanwhile, the Open Book Alliance, which counts Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo as members, and other groups have rallied against it. A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 7 to hear objections to the Google pact with authors and publishers.

For more of this article click here

_____________________________________

From Media Bistro.com

Does Google Books Work?

By Jason Boog on Sep 03, 2009 10:23 AM

As authors’ deadline to opt-out of the Google Books settlement arrives tomorrow, publishing types around the world have been reassessing the program. Everybody from William Morris to Amazon have questioned Google’s efforts to archive millions of titles online.

Today, The Chronicle Review joined the fray, spotting meta-data flaws in Google Books that may hamper searches. This GalleyCat editor has used the database to research a few articles, and actually enjoyed using the search. Have you used Google Books for research? Include your thoughts in the comments for a future feature…

Read more in the article: “A search on books published before 1920 mentioning “candy bar” turns up 66 hits, of which 46-70 percent are misdated. I don’t think that’s representative of the overall proportion of metadata errors, though they are much more common in older works than for the recent titles Google received directly from publishers. But even if the proportion of misdatings is only 5 percent, the corpus is riddled with hundreds of thousands of erroneous publication dates.” (Via Publishers Weekly)

Click here to read more

As Google Settlement Hits Homestretch, Libraries Push for Changes

By Andrew Albanese — Publishers Weekly, 8/26/2009 8:27:00 AM

With the Google Book Search Settlement’s September 4 deadline to object or file comments with the court fast approaching, libraries have ramped up efforts to have the deal altered. This week, the Urban Libraries Council (ULC), a member organization of medium and large public libraries called for changes in the settlement plan, as did New York State librarian Bernard Margolis, in a separate open letter to leaders in the library community.

“This is a pivotal moment in the history of access to recorded information, not unlike the introduction of moveable type or the birth of the Internet,” wrote Susan Benton, the Urban Libraries Council’s (ULC) new president and CEO, in a letter to the federal court overseeing approval of the settlement. “It is important, therefore, that the needs of the public at large shape the thinking of those responsible for guiding this extraordinary advance.”

Like the major library groups did in their brief, filed in May, ULC did not oppose approval of the settlement, but rather alerted the court to where the deal falls short, and asked that the court require the parties to address the issues “before approving the proposed settlement.” Among its concerns, the single free terminal per public library building, which ULC said was “admirable but unworkable.” The parties have said that the Book Rights Registry can authorize more terminals if needed, but ULC members stressed a better plan should be in place before approval.  READ ON FROM HERE

Guild Responds to Second WME Letter on Google Settlement

By Rachel Deahl — Publishers Weekly, 8/17/2009 2:08:00 PM

After the William Morris Endeavor agency issued a letter to clients last week advising them to opt out of the Google settlement, the agency has issued a second letter reasserting its position and detailing it further. In the newest letter, WME states that the Authors Guild, in defending the settlement (which it helped to iron out), fails to “adequately address” the issue that writers, by remaining in, “waive, again for the term of copyright, their right to have Google remove their work from its database if they haven’t done so within twenty-seven months from the Notice Commencement Date.”
Claiming that most publishers won’t be making either “in print” or “out of print” books available for sale through the settlement, WME says that the Guild wrongfully asserts that terms of the settlement won’t affect an author’s ability to renegotiate with Google and that the search giant is making worrisome steps towards a monopoly. “We believe that the license being given to Google to publish and display with impunity out-of-print ‘orphan’ works (where the rights owner is unknown and estimated by theFinancial Times to be between 2.8 and 5 million books out of 32 million books protected by copyright in the United States) will open the door to establishing Google as the most comprehensive database, potentially a monopoly, with unfair bargaining power.”

August 11, 2009

William Morris and the Google Settlement

The William Morris company recently issued an internal memo critiquing the Google Settlement arranged by the Author’s Guild.  In response the AG sent around an industry wide response which we reprint here, for your information.

William Morris’s recent memo to clients about the Google book settlement contains several errors that are likely to sow some confusion.  We’d like to clear that up, so we’ll host a free conference call this Thursday at 3 p.m. Eastern time, open to all agents and authors. Sign up here.

We don’t want to wait until Thursday to straighten things out, however, so here’s the deal in one sentence: unless you want to sue Google, there’s no good reason to opt out of the settlement.  If you want to allow your book to be searchable in Google’s database, and you want to be fairly compensated for Google’s use of your work, and you want to retain complete control over whether, and how, your book is displayed or sold to users, you should remain in the settlement.

William Morris’s principal mistake is that it appears to think that the uses that the settlement permits Google to make are interminable.  This leads the agency to draw a series of erroneous conclusions:  that authors can’t negotiate higher rates for works covered by the settlement, that the agency won’t be able to bundle all of an author’s books (whether or not they’re covered by the settlement) into a single negotiation with Google, and that its clients would be better off with a settlement of more limited duration.  Most fundamentally, it leads the agency to conclude that authors are limited in their dealings with Google to the settlement’s terms, unless the court changes those terms.  It’s wrong, on all counts.

Staying in the settlement does not diminish the agency’s — or anyone’s — negotiating power.*  This is because all rights granted Google under the settlement are terminable at will by the rightsholder.  Licenses that are terminable at will give the rightsholder far more power than a license of defined duration.  In book publishing (as in life) all negotiating power comes from the power to say “no.”  The settlement fully preserves that power for rightsholders, from day one.

By staying in the settlement:
You aren’t limited to the (quite favorable) royalty rate we’ve negotiated.
You have the right to veto your publisher’s decision to make your in-print book available in any way through the settlement.
You have the right to block all displays of your out-of-print books, even if rights haven’t reverted to you, even if your publisher wants to display the books.
You have the right to have your work in Google’s searchable database and display only snippets to users, blocking all other uses by Google.
You have the right to change your mind (allow books you’d previously blocked to be displayed; block books you’d previously allowed to be displayed) at any time.
This is just the start.  For a more complete list of benefits, read this.

The settlement offers a 63/37 split** in your favor.  Want to negotiate a different deal with Google?  Turn off all display uses of your works and go for it.  At any time.

But first things first.  This settlement sets up a vast new marketplace for out-of-print works.  Stay in the settlement to take advantage of that (to stay in the settlement, you need do nothing).  There’s plenty of time to exercise all of your rights and benefits under the settlement — including the right to say “no” to any and all uses — after the settlement’s approved.

Note to literary agencies:  There’s no need to go it alone — please call if you have questions about the settlement.  We’ve discussed the settlement at length with hundreds of agents, and we’re happy to discuss it with you.

Note to William Morris clients:  William Morris has the reputation of working hard for its clients; its memo on the settlement is no doubt a rare misfire for the agency.  We don’t hold it against them, and we urge you to not do so either.  If you’ve already opted out and would like to undo it, please contact us.
________________________

* One caveat: those who remain in the settlement do give up their right to sue Google.  However, William Morris believes Google’s scanning is a fair use (an unusual position for those concerned with authors’ rights, and a decidedly outlier position for those in the copyright bar).  What is more confusing is that William Morris encourages authors to opt out of the settlement while at the same time encouraging them to grant Google the right to use digital copies of their works for search purposes.  If an author opts out, however, Google may well remove his or her books from the database in order to avoid an infringement suit, and the author’s books would not benefit from Google search.  In fact, the only way to ensure that your book will not be completely removed from the database, and thus benefit from Google search, is not to opt-out.  Then will you be able to turn off all display uses except the free, search-based uses (snippets and previews) that will drive traffic to bookstores.

** It’s a good deal.  For comparison:  Amazon buys e-books at a 50% discount from publishers.  If you’re a self-published author, the split is 35/65 — in Amazon’s favor.  Newspapers face a 30/70 split — again in Amazon’s favor — for electronic distribution of their content.

Feel free to forward and post this e-mail.

For further information, contact the Authors Guild: staff@authorsguild.org; 212-563-5904.

From the AAR newsletter 6/26/09

To recap what is happening with the settlement:

Blount Says Orphan Works No Reason to Block Google Settlement; Benefits Touted

By Jim Milliot — Publishers Weekly, 6/25/2009

In his interview with PW earlier this month, Macmillan president John Sargent, one of the two lead negotiators for the publishers in the Google Book Settlement, said supporters of the agreement would begin to make their voices heard soon. Wednesday afternoon, the publishers’ partner in the deal, the Authors Guild, posted a letter on its Web site from Guild president Roy Blount Jr. talking about orphan works and the benefits the settlement will bring to authors, publishers and readers.

Blount played down concerns expressed by some over orphan works , writing, “ I can’t see any reason to dissent from the settlement over the matter of orphan books.” Blount wrote that he is confident many of the rightsholders of orphan works will be found.

For the complete Publishers Weekly article click here.

From the Wall Street Journal 6/10/2009

The Justice Department has sent formal demands to Google Inc. and publishers for information about a deal that would allow the search giant to make millions of books available online, publishing company executives and people briefed on the matter said Tuesday.

The civil investigative demands, or CIDs, are the strongest sign yet that the Justice Department may seek to block or force a renegotiation of the settlement, which was struck last year and has not yet been approved in court. It’s also an indication of the more intense antitrust scrutiny promised by the Obama administration.

From PublishersMarketplace – 6/01/09

Secret Publishers Cabal on GBS Settlement in Javits Basement (Not)
(By Michael Cader)

On Friday, at the invitation of the AAP and Google I moderated a panel discussion with John Sargent from Macmillan and Richard Sarnoff from Bertelsmann that had the modest and focused goal of illuminating for publishers some of the basics of the proposed settlement of the Google Book Search lawsuits. The session was strictly limited to publishers only, which was apparently just the stimulus to make a number of people (mostly press) want to attend, only to get turned away at the door.

Sargent’s opening statement addressed head-on the question of what will happen if the settlement is not approved by the judge. “We will proceed to have litigation for a long time period, perhaps up to five years, during which Google will continue to scan and libraries will continue” to use files in ways that publishers might not like. “The libraries then get to do what they want to do with the scans” and since the law does not allow obtaining monetary awards from state institutions, “there’s a very real danger those files go the way that files do.” In other words, “If we do not have the settlement, we have an open Pandora’s box to deal with.” Google’s Tom Turvey agreed with Sargent’s assessment that scanning (and litigation) would proceed in the absence of an approved agreement.

Among the many advantages of the settlement that Sargent foresees are “an agreement that IP is something to be paid for when it is dispersed” and “a way to control those scans [as they are given back to libraries] that is clearly defined.”

Speaking to concerns about Google’s apparently exclusive franchise over orphan works–whatever body that winds up constituting after books are claimed–Sargent acknowledged that “in plain fact they have a lot of power over those works,” but “anybody has the right to follow in Google’s footsteps if so desired.” Both Sargent and Sarnoff anticipate that the financial incentives will lead to the claiming of many works. “If checks start to go out,” Sargent said, “everybody will be claiming.”

Though foreign publishers have objected to what appears to be sweeping authority from the US over their books, Sargent noted that “the advantage…is that you get protection on your works” that would not exist without the settlement.

Sargent told the group that “there are a lot of people who do not want the settlement to happen” and urged that people who believe in its benefits “need to speak out strongly.”

One obstacle to claiming so far by some publishers has been the awkwardness of the online bulk-claiming process. Sarnoff agreed that “the claiming process is not as smooth as we would like it be, though it’s not outrageous.” He said “a smaller publisher with 100 works can do that in a day.” He also suggested that, as far as deciding which books a publisher could claim, the process might be simpler than people think–unless rights have reverted to an author, most publishers control the rights required to claim a book under the settlement.

Google’s Adam Smith said they are working on improving the bulk-claiming process–and separately, Google engineers are looking at “concerns about bulk claiming especially as related to multiple editions of the same book,” some of which may not get resolved until books are claimed.

A concern from abroad has been the lack of international representation on the board of the Book Rights Registry, even though works in foreign language have been estimated in the past to potentially comprise half of all the material in academic libraries. Here Sargent disclosed that “we are looking at a two-tier structure for the registry board” and said “we do expect to satify the concerns of foreign publishers for representation.” He added that they “realize there are lot of constituents that need a voice,” also including an array of scholarly and educational publishers.

Sarnoff would not speak to the revenue that they estimate would be generated from institutional subscriptions under the settlement agreement. But he noted that “just by the level of concern” over potential pricing it’s clear “the library community feels that this product will be enormously attractive.” On the contrary concern–that pricing might not be competitive and that agreements with parties other than Google might not emerge, Sargent noted, “think of all the players who would like to use some of these books now.”

Meanwhile, though the settlement leaves many potential “new revenue models” to be discussed “over time,” Google’s Smith made it clear that “we are looking to push ahead irrespective of the settlement.” He noted “we’re going to push ahead as quickly as possible” with a “consumer purchase model and other models.”

For a different vantage point on Google, author and journalist Ken Auletta spoke about his forthcoming book on the company at the Saturday BEA author luncheon. (Research included multiple interviews with Google’s founders and many visits to the company’s headquarters.) “They may be brilliant, but they are not always wise,” Auletta advised, and he added “they are people who don’t necessarily think of the consequences of what they are doing.”

“They take the choices out of many of your hands and put the choices in the hands of the consumers.” He added that “engineers are by nature disruptors, not collaborators.” His larger conclusion, for those in book publishing but also in all other media, is that “you have to ride the digital wave, or crash into it.”