Coyle Responds to Anderson's Defense of the Google Book Search Settlement

Would partner libraries be a sufficient check on institutional subscription pricing?

-- Library Journal, 02/22/2010

• Some partner libraries would get database for free
• Smaller libraries might benefit most
• Is collective action possible?
• More to fear from plaintiffs, not Google?

Librarian/consultant Karen Coyle, a critic of the Google Book Search settlement, has responded to a widely-read blog post supporting the settlement by Ivy Anderson of the California Digital Library. Coyle wrote:

I find two fundamental flaws in her arguments. The first is that she speaks from the perspective of a participating library, that is, a library that is able to negotiate directly with Google because of its position as a provider of books to be scanned....

...The second flaw that I see is Anderson's focus on Google as decision-maker. My reading of the composition of the governing body (should the settlement be approved) is that it will solely represent rights holders... I must say that I am much more afraid, if that's the right word, of the power that could be wielded by the AAP/AG should the settlement be approved.

The one that gives me the most pause is the possibility of predatory pricing of the institutional subscription. Michigan's solution was to allow partner libraries to ask for a pricing review. While Michigan (and I suspect Stanford and California) may not need to ask for this because they are getting the subscription for free, the other partner libraries won't be so lucky.
 
...The only solution to the pricing problem that I can see is what Ivy recommends: namely, that if the price is too high or the product does not have the privacy protections we want, then libraries should not subscribe. It is going to be very hard to do this, especially if the "Big Three" are getting the database for free, but it is only collective action on our part that can lead to effective negotiations over price and other features.

Peter, as someone from an institution that was involved in some way in the settlement negotiations, I think you have proven my point: the world looks different from that position.

I can assure you that the pricing arbitration provisions that Michigan and others have insisted on were not negotiated on the basis of narrow self-interest.... The institutional subscription holds out great potential for less advantaged institutions, far more so than for the contributors... The institutional subscription, if it comes to pass, will be a lot like all of the other licenses that libraries currently sign, offering more access to more libraries than fair use would typically allow (participating libraries would be unlikely to make their copies available to another institution for ereserves, for example).