Some additional points that people raised from the discussion at my library that I’m still ruminating over are (1) could this settlement could have an impact on ebook providers like ebrary and netlibrary (which I think could be bad for diversifying the marketplace); (2) Google is making more content snippets available than are currently available (which I think it a good thing); (3) Google may find this venture to not be profitable one day and shut down the service leaving libraries/info providers empty-handed (which I think would be a bad thing); (4) the future of library catalogs could drastically change in a world with Google Books serving up 7+ million books (I don’t know if this is good or bad); (5) the Books Rights Registry is only proposed to be composed of industry people with no library representation (which I think is probably a bad thing); (6) it’s confusing as to what would happen to books or publishers interested in participating for content published after January 5, 2009.

@Kristin. Thanks so much for pointing these things out! I find all of the technicalities very cumbersome, and am glad that you have been able to clarify some of them.

I am confused about the authentication process and what really is going to happen with this. I think we need more clarification. Did Clancy not point to the fact that they would have to look into remote access and try their best to not allow it? Am I confusing this with something else? Maybe I confused this with public libraries, where remote access will not be available, or with the cross-border issue. I also found that many of Clancy’s answers were nebulous about this. In effect, I don’t think we or Google yet know how exactly these things are going to be implemented. The fact that you and I got different messages listening to the panel points to the fact that we need more clarification on the matter.

Regarding privacy, I agree that this is a good time for us to review the agreements we already have. In terms of Google, I am afraid that any data they keep might then reflect on the library. So if someone from such and such library was looking at such and such book and a subpoena comes for that data, what do we do? Even though we have the ability to technically anonymize data, I wonder if every library will. What happens then?

Privacy, then, becomes a greater issue for the individual user who logs in and buys a book as an individual consumer. I think libraries can play a key role in educating the public about this model of private data storage.

And on to Harvard. The article to which I linked states that they aren’t participating in the digitization of in-copyright works. I should have been more clear, so thanks for pointing this out! The reason I use Harvard as an example is that I think they have done us (libraries and librarians and the public) a great service by saying that they need more time to look at the agreement to see how they will continue to participate. Other libraries did not do this, but it is discourse we need.

Google will not “know” what you read, copy, print, etc. At the ALA session, Clancy said that Google intends (in fact, would have to) work with whatever authentication mechanisms libraries currently use to pass users through to content. That may be EZproxy now, but will be something like Shibboleth in the future, where only a “token” is passed to the information provider saying person x is authorized to get the content. If our systems pass an IP address, and we are not happy with that, there are steps we can take to, in essence, anonymize that before the request hits Google’s servers. But as we talk about the privacy of use data issue, I would hope that we aren’t setting ourselves up to look like hypocrites. Do our libraries’ licenses for ejournals constrain what use data publishers can store? Do they specify how quickly those logs are scrubbed, and what data the vendor is permitted to track and keep and to what purpose? And, if the publisher refuses these terms, do we refuse to buy their content?

You say “Harvard immediately pulled out of participation.” That is not true. Darnton addressed this “rumor” in the NYT this week (““Contrary to many reports, Harvard has not rejected the settlement,” Mr. Darnton wrote in an e-mail message, [...] “It is studying the situation as the proposed accord makes its way through the court.” NYT 2/2/09). Google continues to scan out-of-copyright books from Harvard, which is scope they’ve had from the beginning.

You write, “the settlement will not allow for a subscriber library’s users to login via remote access.” This would obviously be an enormous concern to an academic library, but it is not the case. It is true that the proposed agreement doesn’t explicitly say off site uses are permitted for higher education institutions, but it *does* explicitly say they are prohibited without BRR approval for 3 of the 6 categories institutional subscribers (K-12, government, public libraries). See p. 42 of the agreement. See also Q 7 in the Google settlement FAQ (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/faq.html#q7): “The Institutional Subscription will allow users to search, read online (including through remote access) and print books made available through this agreement.”