Maybe you’ve heard about Google Wave. It’s the hot new product from Google, the one that’s going to change the world and replace e-mail and transform us all into cyborgs with the power to travel into the future and save mankind. Or something.

Google Wave is now in a limited beta test, being used by 100,000 people, by invitation only. It’s apparently fantastic stuff, really super-impressive. There’s just one teeny-tiny problem—nobody can explain what Wave is or how it works. Not even the people who created Google Wave seem able to really explain why anyone needs or wants it.

[snip]

And this is a classic Google project. Google famously lets its engineers spend 20 percent of their time tinkering around with side projects. Google also famously puts half-baked ideas out into the world and then waits to see if anything comes of them. The entire Google corporate culture is built on attention-deficit disorder.

Did I mention that Google Wave has robots? Robots! How cool is that? If the engineers had been left alone for another six months they’d have put in Jedi Knights and Klingons, too.

[more] via Google Wave. Huh. What Is It Good For? – Techtonic Shifts Blog – Newsweek.com.

New deal sought in dispute over Google book plan

NEW YORK — A $125 million settlement of a lawsuit that would give Google Inc. the digital rights to millions of out-of-print books will be renegotiated in light of the U.S. Department of Justice’s contention that the deal probably violates antitrust law, lawyers involved in the case said Tuesday.

Lawyers for The Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers and other plaintiffs said in court papers that they and Google met with senior Justice Department officials last Thursday and agreed to work with the government to resolve concerns.

[snip]

The Justice Department told U.S. District Judge Denny Chin in a brief filed last week that the agreement threatens to give Google the power to increase book prices and discourage competition, though it said a renegotiated settlement might obey U.S. copyright and antitrust laws.

The government encouraged an improved settlement, saying it “has the potential to breathe life into millions of works that are now effectively off limits to the public.”

Lawyers for the authors and publishers said in court papers Tuesday that, “as the United States government put it, no one wants `the opportunity or momentum to be lost.’”

They urged Chin to delay a hearing scheduled for Oct. 7, saying that a new agreement may take away some objections among the roughly 400 opinions, both pro and con, which were filed with Chin by a deadline earlier this month.

The lawyers noted that the responses included hundreds of objections from individuals and corporate entities. In addition, the governments of Germany and France and the attorneys general in Connecticut, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington had objected.

Google rivals Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. have also criticized the deal.

[snip]

Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocacy group that has asked the court to reject the settlement, said in a statement that key copyright issues should be settled by Congress in a fully public process.

“Essentially Google and the authors and publishers groups are back at square one and must re-negotiate the deal,” said John M. Simpson, a consumer advocate with Consumer Watchdog who was one of eight witnesses to testify about the deal to the House Judiciary Committee.

read it all via The Associated Press: New deal sought in dispute over Google book plan.

Delay in such things may, we hope, be the kiss of death:

If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly; if the assassination Could trammel up the consequence, and catch With his surcease success; that but this blow Might be the be-all and the end-all here, But here, upon this bank and shoal of time, We’d jump the life to come. But in these cases We still have judgment here; that we but teach Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return To plague the inventor; this even-handed justice Commends the ingredients of our poison’d chalice To our own lips.

Macbeth, Act I. Scene VII.

State AGs on Google Books settlement: We object

Five state attorneys general have joined the opposition to Google’s settlement with book authors and publishers, objecting to the way the settlement distributes unclaimed funds.

The attorneys general for Connecticut, Missouri, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington joined the chorus of opposition to the settlement this week, filing briefs with Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before the October 7 hearing to determine whether the settlement should be approved. The states involved are not pleased with the way the Books Rights Registry set up as part of the deal appears to usurp their ability to collect unclaimed payments on behalf of their citizens.

Under the settlement proposed by Google and several author and publisher groups, Google would be allowed to continue digitizing out-of-print but copyright-protected books and offer them–subject to rights holder approval–on Google Book Search. The company would then share a portion of the revenue earned from selling ads against those book search results, as well as links to book retailers with book rights holders, through the nonprofit Books Rights Registry.

The issue that irks the states is that when the rights holders can’t be located, the Books Rights Registry would keep the proceeds on their behalf while they continue the search for those individuals or groups. Laws in the states objecting to the deal require the state treasurer to be the one who accepts an unclaimed payment on behalf of its citizens, according to a copy of the brief submitted by Missouri’s Chris Koster.

read the rest via State AGs on Google Books settlement: We object | Relevant Results – CNET News.

Google invites Amazon to resell ebook boondoggle

No thanks, say Amazon

By Cade Metz in San Francisco

Hoping to allay fears that its $125m library-scanning settlement would deliver far too much power over the fledgling digital-book market, Google has told Congress it will give competitors access to its online texts.

“Google will host the digital books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any Internet-connected device they choose,” company chief legal officer David Drummond said during a US Congressional hearing this morning. This reseller program would apply to a planned service called Google Editions.

The announcement made (many) headlines, from Reuters to The Wall Street Journal to Cnet. But it’s worth noting this sort of affiliate program is already discussed in Google’s 134-page settlement. And the offer would only apply if the controversial pact wins approval.

“Google’s announcement today that it would give retailers access to out of print books via Google Editions is much ado about nothing,” said the Internet Archive’s Peter Brantley, speaking on behalf of the Open Book Alliance, a group that opposes the Google settlement.

“If Google Editions ever comes to fruition — and it’s pure vaporware right now — it doesn’t address the fundamental problems with the Settlement that so many have cited, including the fact that Google would still have sole control over access to the books, and shoppers would still be subjected to questionable and undefined privacy policies.”

Under its pending settlement with American authors and publishers, Google would get 37 per cent of the revenue from digital books sold through its online book service, and Drummond said that competitors would share much of this revenue with the resellers. But the texts would still be housed on Google’s service, and Google would be the sole option for accessing these digital titles.

[snip]

As reported by CNet, when questioned about Google’s announcement, Amazon – a member of the Open Book Alliance – indicated it has no interest in the Editions reseller program. “The Internet has never been about intermediation,” said Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice president of global policy. “We’re happy to work with rights holders without anybody else’s help.”

read the rest via Google invites Amazon to resell ebook boondoggle • The Register.

Copyright Office Assails Google’s Settlement on Digital Books

By MIGUEL HELFT

SAN FRANCISCO — The nation’s top copyright official made a blistering attack Thursday on a controversial legal settlement that would let Google create a huge online library and bookstore.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Marybeth Peters, the United States register of copyrights, said the settlement between Google and groups representing authors and publishers amounted to an end-run around copyright law that would wrest control of books from authors and other right holders.

Ms. Peters, the first government official to address the settlement in detail, said it would allow Google to profit from the work of others without prior consent and that it could put “diplomatic stress” on the United States because it affected foreign authors whose rights are protected by international treaties.

[snip]

Ms. Peters said that in granting something like a “compulsory license,” a requirement that rights owners license works to others, the settlement essentially usurped the authority of Congress and skirted deliberations.

“In essence, the proposed settlement would give Google a license to infringe first and ask questions later, under the imprimatur of the court,” Ms. Peters wrote in her prepared testimony.

Her opinion is important because it could be reflected in a brief expected from the Justice Department this month.

[more] via Top Copyright Official Assails Google Book Settlement – NYTimes.com.

National Coalition of Authors Urge Rejection of Google Book Search Deal | Electronic Frontier Foundation

New York – A coalition of authors and publishers—including best-sellers Michael Chabon, Jonathan Lethem, and technical author Bruce Schneier—is urging a federal judge to reject the proposed settlement in a lawsuit over Google Book Search, arguing that the sweeping agreement to digitize millions of books ignores critical privacy rights for readers and writers.

The group of more than two dozen authors and publishers, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Samuelson clinic), filed an objection to the settlement today. The coalition is concerned that Google’s collection of personal identifying information about users who browse, read, and make purchases online at Google Book Search will chill their readership.

“Google Book Search and other digital book projects will redefine the way people read and research,” said Lethem, winner of a National Book Critics Circle Award. “Now is the moment to make sure that Google Book Search is as private as the world of physical books. If future readers know that they are leaving a digital trail for others to follow, they may shy away from important intellectual journeys.”

The settlement, currently pending approval from a New York federal district court, would end the legal challenges brought by the Authors’ Guild over the Google Book Search project. It would give Google the green light to scan and digitize millions of books and allow users to search for and read those books online. However, Google’s system could monitor what books users search for, how much of the books they read, and how long they spend on various pages. Google could then combine information about readers’ habits and interests with additional information it collects from other Google services, creating a massive “digital dossier” that would be vulnerable to fishing expeditions by law enforcement or civil litigants.

[more] via National Coalition of Authors Urge Rejection of Google Book Search Deal | Electronic Frontier Foundation.

They’re right to be worried: see “Anonymized” data really isn’t—and here’s why not from Ars Technica.  Google’s promises to “remove personally identifying information” are worthless.

Imagine that your home and the homes of millions of your neighbors are burglarized. Now, say you catch the perpetrator and the case goes to trial. What would you expect–the return of all of your valuable possessions, stringent penalties for damages and jail time for the perpetrator? But instead, the judge agrees to a settlement that lets the perpetrator avoid any penalties, jail time or probation; he lets the perpetrator use the stolen contents for as long as he wants, provided he pays each victim a one-time fee per item; and, for those victims not knowing that their contents were stolen, the perpetrator can keep and use it, without any compensation or penalty at all. Would such a settlement seem fair?

more via Forbes.com.

Over-arching any support for the Google “Settlement” is the view that this deal may create a cool and valuable “public” resource and that, without the settlement, the resource may be impossible to create. But the impossibility issue relates to the fact that the asset cannot economically be created without trampling on the property rights of hundreds of thousands of copyright owners. How to negotiate a license with the hundreds of thousands of copyright owners that exist and the many that would say no? The GBS solves this by answering – “no need to do so, Google is doing a good (and profitable) thing, and the property owners should be happy.” The fact that in the end there may be a valuable asset available to some of the public should not distract us from the reality that this asset will be under the control of a private, large and profitable corporation. And no one else will be realistically able to replicate it. Ever.

Google is not altruistic, nor should it be. Making a profit is a good thing, for Google. It is doing what it proposes to do in the “Settlement” for profit.

What source of profit does Google expect? That is simple. If the settlement is approved and the project completed, Google will have a perpetual lock on the digitized services involved in reference to the books, to archiving books in digital form, and to provide search services with respect to that archive. The advertising and subscription income from this monopoly will be immense. Monopolies are not illegal. But monopolies created by joint arrangements imposed on other parties should be. As much as the cost of creating the copies is huge, the profit from having created them and the market power it will give Google are far greater. And the market control will not end. All new authors and new copyright owners, though not expressly covered by the “Settlement” are likely to find irresistible the need to allow their works to be posted in the only game in town. If your book is not there, where is it and how do I find it?

read the rest via Contemporary Intellectual Property, Licensing & Information Law: Should Google be a regulated utility under its “Settlement”?.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Amazon.com Inc joined the opposition to Google Inc’s plan to digitize millions of books, saying that the proposed deal would fundamentally change copyright law and violate antitrust law.

Amazon, which scans books after getting permission from the copyright holder, said that the court should reject a settlement between Google and the Authors Guild because the deal would change copyright law by allowing Google to digitize books even if the copyright holder cannot be found, often called “orphan works.”

“The proposed settlement usurps the role of Congress in legislating solutions to the complex issues raised by the interplay between new technologies and the nation’s copyright laws,” Amazon said in its filing, which was dated Tuesday.

Amazon also argued that the book registry envisioned in the settlement could constitute price-fixing.

read the rest via Amazon joins opposition to Google book deal | Technology | Internet | Reuters.

… But we’re sometimes interested in finding a book for reasons that have nothing to do with the information it contains, and for those purposes googling is not a very efficient way to search. If you’re looking for a particular edition of Leaves of Grass and simply punch in, “I contain multitudes,” that’s what you’ll get. For those purposes, you want to be able to come in via the book’s metadata, the same way you do if you’re trying to assemble all the French editions of Rousseau’s Social Contract published before 1800 or books of Victorian sermons that talk about profanity.

Or you may be interested in books simply as records of the language as it was used in various periods or genres. Not surprisingly, that’s what gets linguists and assorted wordinistas adrenalized at the thought of all the big historical corpora that are coming online. But it also raises alluring possibilities for social, political, and intellectual historians and for all the strains of literary philology, old and new. With the vast collection of published books at hand, you can track the way happiness replaced felicity in the 17th century, quantify the rise and fall of propaganda or industrial democracy over the course of the 20th century, or pluck out all the Victorian novels that contain the phrase “gentle reader.”

But to pose those questions, you need reliable metadata about dates and categories, which is why it’s so disappointing that the book search’s metadata are a train wreck: a mishmash wrapped in a muddle wrapped in a mess.

Start with publication dates. To take Google’s word for it, 1899 was a literary annus mirabilis, which saw the publication of Raymond Chandler’s Killer in the Rain, The Portable Dorothy Parker, André Malraux’s La Condition Humaine, Stephen King’s Christine, The Complete Shorter Fiction of Virginia Woolf, Raymond Williams’s Culture and Society 1780-1950, and Robert Shelton’s biography of Bob Dylan, to name just a few. And while there may be particular reasons why 1899 comes up so often, such misdatings are spread out across the centuries. A book on Peter F. Drucker is dated 1905, four years before the management consultant was even born; a book of Virginia Woolf’s letters is dated 1900, when she would have been 8 years old. Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities is dated 1888, and an edition of Henry James’s What Maisie Knew is dated 1848.

Of course, there are bound to be occasional howlers in a corpus as extensive as Google’s book search, but these errors are endemic. A search on “Internet” in books published before 1950 produces 527 results; “Medicare” for the same period gets almost 1,600. Or you can simply enter the names of famous writers or public figures and restrict your search to works published before the year of their birth. “Charles Dickens” turns up 182 results for publications before 1812, the vast majority of them referring to the writer. The same type of search turns up 81 hits for Rudyard Kipling, 115 for Greta Garbo, 325 for Woody Allen, and 29 for Barack Obama. Or maybe that was another Barack Obama.

How frequent are such errors? 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.

much, much more at Google’s Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars – The Chronicle Review – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Professor Nunberg is actually a tentative supporter of the “Google Books Agreement,” but does a masterful job of demolishing Google’s pathetic and dishonest explanation for the corrupt (and often hilariously stupid) metadata in their corpus of scanned books.

I think it’s a mistake to expect Google to give a rat’s ass about fixing these problems in any real way.  The point of the Google Books project is not to “expand human knowledge.”  In the short run, it’s to steal other people’s property and make money from it by displaying contextual ads.  Ads don’t know from metadata.  In the long run, Google is hoping that libraries will toss their scanned books into the dumpster (which they will) and Google Books will then be the only game in town for scholars and the general public.