LIBR 244 -- Henkin, Hilary
Exercise 4: This exercise included six searching problems. I’ve included three here.
Links to content:
Exercise 4, Problem 1 – health savings accounts
Exercise 4, Problem 3: how the economic climate affected travel and tourism in the U.S.
Exercise 4 Problem 5: recent articles about the Google Books lawsuit, settlement, and implications for
libraries. Use both Nexis.com and the Web.
Exercise 4, Problem 1: I’m interested in learning about Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).
Provide information about what they are and their benefits. I’ve heard that there is some
controversy surrounding HSAs. Include articles that cover pros and cons.
Summary:
I analyzed the problem for core concepts, and chose only a main concept of “health savings accounts,” and wondered if
the phrase, or some truncated portion of it, was a subject term. Although I knew that Nexis searching includes both
singular and plural forms of a word, I wasn’t sure if an index term would do the same. I clicked on the link to “Find Terms
containing”, searched for the phrase, found it (in the plural), and added it to my search string. I also added the acronym
“HSA,” since I knew that was a common way of referring to these accounts. Because I was looking for non-specialist (not
for the medical profession) information, I chose the news and Industry categories.
Since I was looking for pros and cons based on experience (not expectation before implementation), I limited the search
to News: the past two years. I thought I would examine these results, to decide what further limitations to add.
My initial search was:
You searched for: (allcaps(hsa)) AND (INDEX-CODE((HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS)))
Search Terms [(allcaps(hsa))] (1352) View search details
Source
[News (Last Two Years);Industry] Show Expanded List Sort Newest to Oldest Date/Time
October 27 2011 21:10:38 *Document Count 200 documents analyzed and 13 similar documents found
Of these results, several were relevant, but others were not. I decided to add a NOT qualifier, to exclude results for“HSA
Bank”. After a few false starts to find the right syntax, I decided to just start a new search, adding several other search
terms, hoping to increase my precision. I also realized that because “hsa” was a unique term, I didn’t need to use the
allcaps command.
My second search was:
You searched for: (hsa and (advantage or benefit) and (choice or choose) and not (hsa bank)) AND (INDEXCODE((HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS)))
Source
[News (Last Two Years);Industry] Show Expanded List Sort Newest to Oldest Date/Time
October 27 2011 20:58:09 *Document Count 200 documents analyzed and 20 similar documents found
I also restricted the index term to the headline or lead paragraph.
I examined my results further, and decided not to restrict my terms to the title/hlead, since some of my first relevant
results would’ve been lost if I did. I had 43 results. Although I’d set Duplication to “high,” seven of the first twenty-five
duplicated others in content. Of the remaining eighteen, eleven were relevant. Five are included here.
My third (additional) search:
In copying the articles from the downloaded file to this paper, I felt I lacked adequate review of the disadvantages of
HSAs, so did an additional search.
You searched for: (hsa and (disadvantage or con)) AND (INDEX-CODE((HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS)))
I received 23 results, two of which are included here, following the first set of articles.
Article:
Health & Beauty Close-Up
September 12, 2011 Monday
UMB Healthcare Services' CEO Comments on Common HSA Myths
LENGTH: 744 words
Offered since 2004, Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are still relatively new to the health care marketplace.
According to a release, the relative newness of these accounts leaves much room for education and opportunity for
misconceptions. Dennis Triplett, CEO of UMB Healthcare Services, a division of UMB Financial Corp., provides the
following perspective to address common myths surrounding HSAs:
MYTH: HSAs are only for the wealthy
Given the fact that HSAs are paired with high-deductible health plans, it is a common misconception that HSAs are bestsuited for persons with high incomes who can more easily afford to pay for a high deductible than a person with an average
income. In reality, HSAs are a powerful vehicle to save and pay for health care expenses, regardless of income level.
According to a March 2011 study by Employee Benefits Research Institute, a little more than half of HSA plans are
enrolled in by families with incomes of less than $100,000.
HSAs partnered with a qualified high-deductible plan can be cost effective through monthly premium reductions that allow
for contributions to an HSA to prepare for future health-related expenses. Research also shows that the annual premium
costs for families decreases by an average of $2,350 for an HSA-eligible plan compared to a traditional plan, and that the
premium savings covers nearly 60 percent of the average HSA-eligible plan's deductible (The Kaiser Family Foundation
and Health Research & Educational Trust 2010 Annual Survey Employer Health Benefits).
MYTH: HSAs are just for the young and healthy
Regardless of a person's age or health, HSAs are useful. In fact, HSA enrollment is nearly equal across age groups. Fortynine percent of all HSA/high-deductible health plan enrollees in the individual market, including dependents covered under
family plans, were age 40 or older, according to a January 2011 report from America's Health Insurance Plans.
HSAs can be a long-term investment opportunity, but that is not the only opportunity for these accounts. They can also be
an effective tool for those who are nearing retirement age and looking for a virtually tax-free account to save for health care
expenses during their pre-retirement years. People aged 55 and older have the opportunity to make catch-up contributions
each year that is over and above the allowable limit for the individual year. The catch-up contribution for 2011 is $1,000,
and one is able to make contributions until he or she becomes Medicare active.
MYTH: HSAs provide limited coverage
Qualified high-deductible plans coupled with HSAs actually provide comprehensive health care coverage. Most HSAqualified plans cover prescription drugs, doctor's office visits and preventative care without a deductible. This typically
includes: prescription drugs, doctor's office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalization and lab and X-ray services.
One key difference with coverage and costs is that consumer-directed plans emphasize individual decision-making.
Participants have an incentive to avoid paying for unnecessary services because they keep the money they don't spend. In
the end, this demonstrably improves health care costs, efficiency and wellness.
MYTH: HSAs are simply shifting costs to individuals
Employers are not the sole benefactors when implementing consumer-directed plans. Establishing HSAs is not just about
helping employees create a medical savings account; rather, it is about creating equity, building value and helping
employees better manage their dollars and their health. In conjunction with a high-deductible health plan, HSAs encourage
employees to share the responsibility-and the rewards-for more closely monitoring their health and the cost of their care.
Because they are invested in their own care, employees become better health care consumers, and better consumers make
better choices.
In dispelling these common myths, one can more clearly understand that HSAs are advantageous for all Americans regardless of income, age or health. A unique and powerful tool, an HSA can be used to provide comprehensive coverage
now, as well as save for future expenses.
UMB Financial Corp. is a financial services holding company headquartered in Kansas City, Mo., offering complete
banking, asset management, health spending solutions and related financial services to commercial, institutional and
personal customers nationwide.
((Comments on this story may be sent to health@closeupmedia.com))
LOAD-DATE: September 12, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newsletter
Copyright 2011 Close-Up Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Article:
Great Falls Tribune (Montana)
September 11, 2011 Sunday
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS see rise and expansion
BYLINE: By, SHANNON HOILAND
SECTION: GREAT FALLS BUSINESS; Pg. 7
LENGTH: 667 words
As the cost of health care continues to rise, Health Savings Accounts have become an increasingly popular health benefits
tool among employers and employees.
Since their introduction seven years ago, the number of companies providing employees with HSAs continues to grow.
According to the National Business Group on Health, 61 percent of large employers will offer a consumer-directed health
plan in 2011. Among those employers offering a CDHP, the number offering only a CDHP, and no other health plan,
doubled from 10 percent in 2010 to 20 percent in 2011.
More and more employees covered under a CDHP are taking advantage of an HSA as well. A 2009 report by America's
Health Insurance Plans of U.S. health insurance carriers shows that the number of people covered by health savings
accounts/high-deductible health plans now totals 8 million.
Approved by Congress in late 2003 as part of the Medicare Reform Act, the HSA is a cross between a Health Flexible
Spending Account, an IRA and a 401(k), and is offered in conjunction with a high-deductible health plan. HSA funds can
be used tax-free to pay for qualified medical expenses, including dental expenses, deductibles and co-pays.
HSAs are open to everyone with a high-deductible health insurance plan. The only limitation on the health plan is that the
annual deductible must be at least $1,100 for individual coverage and at least $2,200 for family coverage.
Employees can deduct contributions they make on their own tax return, or they can make contributions directly via a pretax payroll salary reduction program run through an employer's cafeteria plan. The employer also can contribute using pretax funds. Unlike funds in a flexible spending account, money in an HSA can be saved year after year and used for future
medical expenses. HSA funds also can continue to grow tax-free.
Recently, leading financial providers have made several enhancements to HSA products. With improved online employee
enrollment, enhanced statements and online reporting, and the convenience of ATM access, employees and employers have
increased access and flexibility ¿ whether they're managing or providing HSAs.
Several resources are available to help determine if an HSA is right for you and your company. Financial providers that
offer HSAs, such as Wells Fargo, have extensive information on their websites (www.wellsfargo.com/hsa), as well as a
team of experienced professionals available to answer questions. The U.S. Treasury's website (www.ustreas.gov/
offices/publicaffairs/ hsa/faq_basics.shtml) is another source for useful information.
Learn more about HSAs today. It may be your best option for managing health care expenses.
Shannon Hoiland is Vice President and Principal Business Relationship Manager with Wells Fargo in Great Falls. She can
be reached at 406-454-5458 or shannon.e.hoiland@wellsfargo.com
KEY FEATURES TO WATCH FOR
When choosing an HSA provider, following are some key features you'll want to be sure are available to you.
New benefits for employees:
»Ability to make free withdrawals at your financial provider's ATMs.
»Convenient deposits, withdrawals and transfers at banking locations.
»Optional payment by HSA checks or online reimbursement into another account.
»Expanded suite of mutual fund investment options for long-term savings choices.
»Simplified online access to transaction details, monthly account statements and tax documents.
»Updated debit card tied to a national network ¿ such as Visa® ¿ that can be used at any merchant that accepts the
network's debit cards.
New benefits for employers:
»Easy online maintenance to view, enroll, change and remove employee accounts.
»Improved contribution options, including ACH direct contributions as well as other efficient online contributions.
»Secure online access to new census, contribution and enrollment reports available in a variety of downloadable
formats.
»Continued and growing library of employer education materials and full-service support of annual enrollment
activities.
LOAD-DATE: September 29, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: grt
Copyright 2011 Great Falls Tribune
All Rights Reserved
Article:
Daily the Pak Banker
October 9, 2011 Sunday
Considering Health Insurance Options? HSAcenter.com Can Help
LENGTH: 446 words
DATELINE: Karachi
Karachi, Oct. 09 -- Whether people get their health coverage through their employers or purchase their own policies,
millions of Americans are reviewing their health plan options for 2012 and looking for ways to keep more money in their
pockets while meeting their health care needs.
An increasing number of consumers are choosing health savings accounts (HSAs), which are available for both group and
individual health insurance plan participants. According to a January 2011 census by insurance trade group America's
Health Insurance Plans, more than 11 million Americans with group or individual coverage had HSA high deductible
health plan coverage - an increase of more than 14 percent over last year.
In addition, 61 percent of all employers currently offer consumer-directed health plans as either an option or the only
choice available to their employees, according to a survey by the National Business Group on Health. That number is
expected to be as high as 73 percent in 2012, according to the same survey.
To make it easier for consumers to decide whether an HSA is their best health insurance option, UnitedHealthcare's Golden
Rule Insurance Company recently updated its online resource site www.HSAcenter.com. Consumers can consult the
following resources to learn about HSAs:
* Use one of three available calculators to compare HSAs to other health plans, estimate potential tax savings and calculate
the future value of accumulated savings.
* View new presentations that highlight what an HSA is, how it works and the cost-saving advantages.
* Read the latest information on the limited impact of health care reform on HSAs.
* Have a question? Check the updated Health Savings Account FAQs page for answers.
* Visit the website to learn about 2012 HSA contribution limits, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses.
"Today, a quarter of Golden Rule's customers are covered by HSA health plans. More and more consumers are learning
how HSAs work as well as their overall value, which includes savings on health insurance premiums, more control over
health care spending and reducing their taxes," said Richard A. Collins, Golden Rule CEO. "We think it's important to offer
consumers practical tools, such as HSAcenter.com, to help them determine the best health insurance plan for their family."
Golden Rule's expertise in the consumer-directed health care market goes back to 1993 when the company pioneered the
first medical savings account (MSA), predecessor to the HSA Published by HT Syndication with permission from Daily
Pak Banker. For any query with respect to this article or any other content requirement, please contact Editor at
htsyndication@hindustantimes.com
LOAD-DATE: October 10, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2011 Right Vision News
All Rights Reserved
Article:
The Marshfield News (Wisconsin)
October 22, 2011 Saturday
Column: Open enrollment: Time for a health plan checkup
BYLINE: By, For the Marshfield News-Herald
SECTION: MNH; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 514 words
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. -- Do your benefits need a checkup? Open enrollment season is here, which serves as a good
reminder to evaluate how well your health care plan meets your needs. You might not realize how much you could save or
how much more coverage you could get from switching plans. This year, while evaluating your health plan, consider a
health savings account. It could be just what the doctor ordered.
» What is an HSA?
A Health Savings Account is a tax-advantaged medical savings account that allows you to accumulate savings to pay for
current and future qualified medical expenses. HSAs are paired with an HSA-qualified High Deductible Health Plan.
Because HDHPs typically have lower monthly premiums, an HSA can result in significant savings.
"HSAs are a great way for people to take control over their health care," said Kristin Vlasak, senior vice president of
Thrivent Financial Bank. "If you don't need to use those dollars today, you can save more and easily cover the higher
deductible if you should need to."
HSA account benefits include the ability to carry the money over from year to year, create a cash reserve for unexpected
medical expenses and gain additional tax savings*.
Not sure if an HSA is right for you? Read on as Thrivent Financial Bank explains how an HSA can put you in control of
your healthcare coverage.
» You decide how much to contribute
HSAs allow you to decide how much to contribute and which qualified expenses to pay for the account. There is no time
limit for taking qualified HSA distributions.
» You decide when you use your account
HSAs can be used for qualified medical expenses (even during retirement), Medicare premiums and long-term care
insurance premiums*.
» Make the most of tax savings
There are three types of tax savings with HSAs. Contributions to HSAs are tax-deductible, interest earned on the account is
tax-free, and the withdrawals for qualified medical expenses are not taxed.
» Additional perks with an HSA
To make paying for qualified medical expenses easier, HSAs typically provide a debit card, many of which have no annual
fees and no transaction limits. Interest on an HSA account can be paid on a tiered rate, meaning the more you save, the
more you earn.
Your health changes over time, and your coverage needs do too. With an HSA, your savings are able to build and stay put
until medical needs arise. Give your benefits a check-up today, and see if a health savings account could help you save.
Visit Thriventbank.com/hsa for more information. With less financial stress, you might even become healthier, making
your next checkup a positive one.
·Consult your tax adviser to find out about tax savings using an HSA. All tax references are at the federal level. State taxes
can vary. This information is not intended to be construed as legal, tax or investment advice. For advice on how this
information applies to your individual circumstances, contact your attorney, tax adviser or other appropriate professionals.
Submitted by Megan
McCormick, Communications Associate, Thrivent Financial For Lutherans, Minneapolis, Minn.
LOAD-DATE: October 22, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: mrs
Copyright 2011 The Marshfield News
All Rights Reserved
Article:
Forbes
November 7, 2011
Benefits Madness
BYLINE: Ashlea Ebeling
SECTION: INVESTING; Pg. 62 Vol. 188 No. 8
LENGTH: 517 words
HIGHLIGHT: To protect your health and wealth, you'll need to know the ins and outs of HRAs, HSAs and FSAs. Here's
help.
CALL IT NOVEMBER MADNESS.
Tens of millions of workers, rather than picking basketball brackets, select from a confusing lineup of health insurance
plans and accounts during an annual ritual known as "open enrollment."
Complicating this year's choices: For the first time more than half of employers surveyed by benefits consultant AON
Hewitt are offering "consumer-driven" health plans that require workers to pay hundreds or thousands in deductibles. While
the main point of such plans is to contain costs (or at least shift them to employees), they can be a smart choice if you're
wealthy, healthy or young--and understand what you're buying into.
An HRA is not an HSA
To get you to sign up for a high-deductible plan, your employer might offer a lower premium and also put half the
deductible in a health reimbursement account (HRA) for you. If you don't go to the doctor much, you can use that HRA
cash for dental and vision care. Limiting an HRA's appeal: You usually can't take unused dollars with you if you're fired or
quit.
An HSA has big tax benefits
Both you and your employer can contribute to a health savings account--a combined total of $3,100 next year for an
individual or $6,250 for a covered family. (Those 55 or older can put in another $1,000.) The HSA is yours--you can take it
with you into retirement and pass it on to your heirs.
What you contribute to an HSA reduces your taxable salary, meaning thousands in tax savings for high-income folks. Plus,
unspent HSA dollars can be invested, grow tax free and can be used later, tax free, for medical, dental and vision expenses.
"HSAs are a wonderful way for Americans to accumulate a health care nest egg," says Christopher Goldsmith, vice
president at Sibson Consulting in Cleveland. Once you reach age 65, you can use HSA money for nonmedical expenses,
but you'll owe income taxes if you do.
The catch? To have an HSA you must be enrolled in a plan with a deductible of at least $1,200 for a single or $2,400 for
family coverage, and your total out-of-pocket costs (including deductibles and copays) can run as high in 2012 as $6,050
for an individual or $12,100 for a family. (The deductible doesn't usually apply to preventive care.) These plans are
generally not a good choice for those with chronic health problems or pricey prescriptions, Goldsmith warns. It's also not
for those with a paperwork aversion; you'll need to keep receipts to reimburse yourself from an HSA and to file a tax form.
FSAs have special traps
You can divert salary, pretax, into a flexible spending account to pay out-of-pocket medical, dental or vision care expenses.
But any money you don't use in a given year is lost. If you also have an HSA, you can use your FSA only for vision and
dental expenses. And since Jan. 1 neither FSA money (nor HRA or HSA cash) can pay for over-the-counter medicines
other than insulin, unless you have a doctor's prescription. Tip: Starting in 2013 FSA contributions will be limited to $2,500
a year. So if you want to use an FSA for an expensive procedure like Lasik eye surgery (it averages $4,300), do it in 2012.
LOAD-DATE: October 24, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine
Copyright 2011 Forbes Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Article:
Lifehacker
August 17, 2010 Tuesday 5:00 PM EST
Ditching Traditional Health Insurance for a Health Savings Account Plan [Healthcare]
LENGTH: 251 words
Aug. 17, 2010 (Gawker Media delivered by Newstex) -If you're fed up with your health care provider and think you could manage your medical bills better yourself, a health
savings account might be a better option for you and your family.
WorkAwesome offers up the pros and cons of using a health savings account (HSA) plan instead of traditional health
insurance. If you're not familiar, a HSA is a pre-tax account where you can save money from each paycheck to pay for a
variety of qualified medical expenses. This doesn't just include visits to the doctor, but prescriptions, eyeglasses, and even
over the counter medicine. Most people use an HSA for medical expenses that aren't covered by their health insurance
plans, but with a maximum annual contribution of $6,150 (for people under 55), you also have the option to use your HSA
as a personal insurance plan (that rolls over from year to year).
The biggest disadvantage to a HSA plan is that you're starting off with a small amount of money. Paying out of pocket can
be difficult if you're sick or injured when your HSA holds a low balance. Over time, however, you'll end up with a hefty
sum to cover your medical expenses and "best of all" when you don't spend the money, you get to keep it. HSA options
vary so you may not be able to roll your own health insurance this way, but check with your employer if you're not happy
with your traditional coverage.
Should You Switch to a Health Savings Account? [WorkAwesome]
Newstex ID: GAWK-0009-47954769
LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2010
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
NOTES: The views expressed on blogs distributed by Newstex and its re-distributors ("Blogs on Demand®") are solely the
author's and not necessarily the views of Newstex or its re-distributors. Posts from such authors are provided "AS IS", with
no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided in Blogs on Demand® are for general
information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. No content on such Blogs on
Demand® is "read and approved" before it is posted. Accordingly, neither Newstex nor its re-distributors make any claims,
promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained therein or linked to
from such blogs, nor take responsibility for any aspect of such blog content. All content on Blogs on Demand® shall be
construed as author-based content and commentary. Accordingly, no warranties or other guarantees will be offered as to the
quality of the opinions, commentary or anything else offered on such Blogs on Demand®. Reader's comments reflect their
individual opinion and their publication within Blogs on Demand® shall not infer or connote an endorsement by Newstex
or its re-distributors of such reader's comments or views. Newstex and its re-distributors expressly reserve the right to
delete posts and comments at its and their sole discretion.
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2010 Newstex LLC
All Rights Reserved
Newstex Web Blogs
Copyright 2010 Lifehacker
Article:
Patriot News (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)
May 31, 2010 Monday
FINAL EDITION
High-deductible plans see healthy growth ;
The insurance policies combined with tax-free health savings accounts have lower
premiums but higher out-of-pocket costs.
BYLINE: Of the Patriot-News DAVID WENNER
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1254 words
A health care relic of the Bush era may be taking off in the age of the Obama-style overhaul.
Use of health savings accounts grew 25 percent in 2009, according to America's Health Insurance Plans, a national trade
group.
About 10 million Americans are covered by HSAs, the group said.
Pennsylvania's largest insurer, Highmark Inc., reported even bigger growth -- 84 percent in 2009.
The main attraction of health insurance plans with HSAs is that they offer lower premiums than traditional plans.
But there's a trade-off: They have high deductibles.
Until you reach the deductible, money for routine medical care, including prescriptions, comes out of your pocket.
Still, the growth in HSAs seems driven by a desire among individuals and businesses to find more affordable health
insurance.
Corinne and Harry Golden of Dillsburg had long obtained coverage through their janitorial business.
But Harry Golden is about to turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare. So they had to find a plan for Corinne Golden, 59.
Following the advice of a relative who owns a business, they went to the Highmark Direct retail outlet in Silver Spring
Twp., where Corinne Golden decided on an HSA plan.
Her plan has a $1,200 annual deductible. Her monthly premium is $505.30.
The couple said that, based on what they paid for their previous plan, the coverage is surprisingly affordable.
"It's a relief," Corinne Golden said.
Highmark has 160,000 members covered by HSA-type plans, up from 87,000 at the beginning of 2009.
Yet even with that growth, HSA customers amount to only a sliver of Highmark's 4.7 million members.
But they account for the majority of sales at Highmark's two retail outlets, including the one in Silver Spring Square in
Cumberland County.
Barb Ogorzalek, assistant manager of the Silver Spring store, said many customers choosing plans with HSAs are recent
college graduates moving off their parents' plans or people who need health insurance because they lost their jobs.
Ideally, the owner makes regular contributions to the HSA. This money can then be withdrawn to cover the insurance
deductible, co-payments and other eligible medical expenses.
The attraction is that an HSA can allow you to pay for health care expenses and build up money for health expenses on a
tax-free basis.
If you're lucky and you don't need to spend all the money you put in your HSA, you can end up with a pot of money.
However, you pay a penalty if you spend the money on anything other than health care.
For Highmark customers who buy an insurance plan with an HSA for a single person, the most popular plan involves a
$1,200 annual deductible. In this case, the most they would have to pay out of pocket in a year, not counting premiums, is
$2,200, Ogorzalek said.
The monthly premiums are based on age, sex and health status. Pre-existing medical conditions and health-related habits
such as smoking result in higher premiums.
For an individual who opts for the $1,200 deductible, monthly premiums range from about $80 to $505.30.
For families, the most popular deductible amount is $2,400. The most they would pay in out-of-pocket costs is $4,400 a
year, Ogorzalek said. For a husband and wife with two or more children, monthly premiums range from $367 to about
$1,500.
The high end of those premium scales refers to "guarantee issue" coverage, meaning they are available even to someone
who has medical problems.
In 2006, York College began including an HSA among the options for its employees.
In the first year, about 40 employees opted for the plan, said Vicki Stewart, the director of human resources.
Now about 205 of the 385 employees who use company-sponsored health benefits are enrolled in the HSA plan, she said.
"It's cheaper. It's much cheaper," Stewart said, referring to the amount employees pay toward their premiums.
In the first year, the college made an HSA contribution that covered the full deductible. But in subsequent years, the college
raised the deductible amount while keeping the HSA contribution the same.
That means employees who didn't spend all the money in their HSA accumulated money that can offset the increased
deductible. But those who spent more now must dig deeper into their pockets.
And that touches on one of the theories behind HSAs: that they will motivate people to be prudent in their health care
spending and try to hold down costs by taking care of their health.
York College has seen a decline in services such as diagnostic tests among HSA users, suggesting they have become more
discriminating in their use of health care dollars, Stewart said.
But HSAs have critics.
Several Harrisburg-area hospitals have said people with HSAs tend to put off needed medical care or ask for less-expensive
remedies that aren't the best medical choices.
They also said many people are surprised by the amount of out-of-pocket costs they are expected to pay.
Kathleen Stoll is the director of family policy for Families USA, a group that advocates for affordable health care.
She said HSAs might work well for people with higher incomes, who derive maximum benefit from the tax advantages and
have money in their budgets for the deductibles and co-pays.
But she said it's possible for a family to wind up with up to $11,900 in out-of-pocket costs.
Low-wage earners who need medical care can wind up in a situation where they can't obtain the care "until they can scrape
together the money to cross the deductible barrier to insurance coverage," Stoll said.
Studies also have shown that many people who opt for a plan with an HSA never activate the HSA and contribute money.
INFOBOX: Pros and cons
Q: What is an insurance plan with an HSA?
A: It's a health savings account combined with a high- deductible health insurance plan.
It's owned by the individual, rather than the employer. The money goes with the person if the person changes jobs. The
purpose of the high- deductible insurance plan is to cover major illness but not routine medical care such as doctor visits.
The owner has to pay the deductible, typically at least $1,200 for an individual and $2,400 for a family, before the
insurance begins paying.
Q: What are the major pros of HSA plans?
A: Premiums for the high- deductible health insurance plan are lower than for traditional health insurance. The savings
account portion allows you to avoid taxes when paying for health care. Money in the savings account, which can be tied to
investments, can grow tax-free. Supporters argue HSAs can improve the health care system by making people more aware
of their health care spending. Since they are spending their own money, people will be more inclined to seek the best price
and quality, watch for fraud and excess, and try to save money by staying healthy, supporters say.
Q: What are the major cons?
A: The high deductible might cause people to avoid needed medical care. Critics say the plans may work well for the
young, healthy and wealthy, but not for people with modest incomes, especially those with chronic medical conditions.
They also worry HSAs will pull the young and healthy away from the overall insurance pool, limiting the money available
to pay for the sick. Harrisburg area hospitals have said many HSA users seem unprepared for their out- of- pocket costs.
And there remains an uneven playing field between businesses and individuals. Individuals receive tax advantages when
contributing to HSAs. But the tax advantages are greater when employers are paying for the high- deductible insurance plan
and putting money in the HSAs.
? David Wenner, dwenner@patriot-news.com
LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2010
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
NOTES: INFOBOX APPEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STORY
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: hrn
Copyright 2010 The Patriot News Co.
All Rights Reserved
LIBR 244 – Henkin, Hilary
Exercise 4, Problem 3: Find articles about how the economic climate (i.e., the recession) has
affected travel and tourism in the U.S.
Summary:
I began by determining groups of synonyms and core concept, then combining some of these into a search strategy:
touris! – travel!
Sightseeing industry – sight-seeing (hyphenated) – vacation industry – leisure industry – holiday business
tour – voyage – journey
economy – economic climate
recession
First search:
(travel! or touris! or vacation or sight-seeing or sightseeing) and (econom! or recession)
Exclude <500 words; Sources: News; Previous Year;
I received “more than 3000” results. Aborted search to edit again.
Second search:
(travel! or touris! or vacation) and (econom! or recession)
Exclude <500 words; Sources: News; Previous Year;
I received “more than 3000” results. Aborted search to edit again.
Third search:
Search Terms [((travel! or touris! or vacation) and (economy or economic))] (997) View search details
Source
[News (Last Two Years)] Show Expanded List Sort Relevance Date/Time October 31 2011
21:54:22 *Document Count 200 documents analyzed and 21 similar documents found
You searched for: ((travel! or touris! or vacation) and (economy or economic)) AND NOT (length<500) and
DATE(>=2010-10-31)
I received “more than 3000” results again. Remembering that in Dialog, we routinely worked with thousands of results,
this time I retrieved these results to view and analyze, and noticed several potentially-useful subject terms:
leisure travel – travel hospitality & tourism – domestic tourism – economic conditions – holidays and observances –
tourism – toruism development – economic recovery – economic decline
I began a fourth search, incorporating some of these terms.
Fourth search
(subject (leisure travel) or subject (tourism development) or subject (domestic tourism)) and (subject (economic
conditions) or subject (economic decline))
Search Terms [((subject (leisure travel) or subject (tourism development) or subject (domestic tourism)) and
(subject (economic conditions) or subject (economic decline)))] (2561) View search details
Source
[News (Last Two Years)] Show Expanded List Sort Newest to Oldest Date/Time October 31
2011 22:14:01 *Document Count 200 documents analyzed and 69 similar documents found
You searched for: ((subject (leisure travel) or subject (tourism development) or subject (domestic tourism)) and
(subject (economic conditions) or subject (economic decline))) AND NOT (length<500) and DATE(>=2010-10-31)
I received 2492 results. Once I confirmed via a discussion board posting that we could include either world-wide or
domestic information, I analyzed the results. I hoped to find a range of results throughout the world, indicating that this
issue extends beyond the United States. In the first twenty-five results, eight duplicated others. From the remaining
seventeen, I selected six, choosing articles describing world-wide locations.
Article:
Western Morning News (Plymouth, UK)
July 29, 2011 Friday
Edition 1; National Edition
West remains a haven for the foreign holidaymaker
BYLINE: GRAEME DEMIANYK
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6
LENGTH: 432 words
Holiday visits to the Westcountry by overseas residents soared last year, official figures show.
Foreign tourists made 237,000 visits to Devon in 2010, up from 221,000 in the previous year, the Office for National
Statistics (ONS) showed.
Cornwall mirrored the trend, with 222,000 overseas holidaymakers heading to the Duchy last year, a rise on 180,000 in
2009.
Domestic tourism makes up the lion's share of visitors to the Westcountry, underpinning the region's most vital sector. But
those from overseas tend to spend more money per head.
The figures underline the growing importance of foreign visitors to the region just after a £100 million campaign to lure
more well-heeled holidaymakers to these shores was launched. Some fear a £100 million Government-backed advertising
push to draw tourists to the UK risks overlooking the Westcountry. Oscar-winning actress Dame Judi Dench and celebrity
chef Jamie Oliver are among the celebrities fronting an international campaign orchestrated by the VisitBritain tourism
agency.
A series of short films featuring A-list celebrities has been filmed largely in London and the South East, with not a single
shot of Cornwall or Devon beaches, countryside or landmarks. But while holiday footfall was up in the two counties, total
visits and spending by foreign visitors - including business trips and stays with family and friends - fell.
This can be explained by fragile business confidence and the global economic slowdown causing visitors to spend more
thriftily.
Some £288 million was spent in Devon and Cornwall last year by all overseas visitors - down on £292 million in 2009.
Holiday visits to the entire UK by overseas residents reached record levels last year, the figures showed. Foreign tourists
made just under 11.7 million visits to the UK for holiday purposes in 2010 - up from the 11.4 million total in 2009.
Reflecting the Westcountry trend, total visits by overseas residents dipped slightly from 29.9 million in 2009 to 29.8
million in 2010. French residents made the most trips (3.6 million) to the UK last year, followed by Germans (3 million),
Americans (2.7 million) and visitors from the Irish Republic (2.6 million).
London was the only region of the UK to see visits by overseas residents increase during 2010, with overnight visits rising
from 14.2 million in 2009 to 14.7 million last year.
This contrasts with the rest of England which saw a fall in stays for the third year running.
The total of 12.6 million in 2010 was 0.4 million down on the 2009 figure. Edinburgh continues to be the second most
visited city.
COMMENT PAGE 10 >
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
JOURNAL-CODE: WMN
Copyright 2011 Western Morning News (Plymouth)
All Rights Reserved
Article:
Business World (Digest)
July 22, 2010 Thursday
Tourism slump may last five more years; Tourism Fears
LENGTH: 692 words
HIGHLIGHT: The slump in Irish tourism could last up to five more years, according to a report from the Irish Tourist
Industry Confederation (ITIC).
The slump in Irish tourism could last up to five more years, according to a report from the Irish Tourist Industry
Confederation (ITIC).
Irish tourism faces an ongoing difficult trading period due to slow economic recovery in its main source markets and
recovery to pre-recession levels could be at least 3 to 5 years away, it said.
A strategy of greater focus on the top four producing overseas source markets - Britain, the United States, Germany and
France - to reverse the decline in Irish tourism is a key recommendation in a report published today by ITIC. The recovery
of the British market is seen as a top priority.
Launching the report the ITIC Chief Executive Eamonn McKeon said that while it was easy to feel deflated at times with the
continuous drop in overseas visitor numbers, the indications were strongly pointing to the probability that we have reached
the nadir. 'What is important now', he went on , 'is that the industry and Government work together to manage recovery in the
fastest possible time, even if it is likely that 2007 peak levels will not be regained for up to 5 years'. Commenting on the
report, Tourism Minister Mary Hanafin said "we were fortunate to enjoy a number of years of successive growth in Irish
tourism up to the middle of 2008. Unfortunately, the global economic slowdown, which particularly impacted on our most
important source markets, has meant that a lot of tourism enterprises are going through a very difficult time at present. But
we have faced challenges before and come through them in a stronger position. The Government is strongly committed to
working with all those involved to ensure that the tourism sector returns to growth. The main emphasis is on helping the
sector generate additional visitors from overseas, increasing domestic tourism, supporting the industry to address its cost base
and ensuring that credit is available to tourism enterprises requiring it. "Good data and ongoing analysis is essential for
setting the right policies and actions and for ensuring these remain effective as the external business and tourism context
evolves. This report will complement and further inform the ongoing work being conducted by the Department, the tourism
agencies and wider Government," the Minister said. The ITIC report calls for increased marketing of Dublin, which is the
destination of choice for a growing share of leisure visitors to Ireland. Attracting greater numbers to Dublin would underpin a
return to growth in Irish tourism, according to the report. It states that the capital, rather uniquely for an urban destination,
offers easy access to the countryside and will remain the most important gateway to Ireland, with currently up to 80 pc of
overseas visitors arriving through Dublin. Maintaining adequate access by air to Ireland is a prerequisite to recovery of the
industry, the report claims, and air transport policy needs to ensure that measures do not militate against the continued
viability of air services to/from Ireland. ITIC believes that the abolition of the travel tax is essential to the viability of many
services in order to secure their continued operation. The quintessential appeals of Ireland - its people and scenery - continue
to rank highly and deliver a satisfactory experience for overseas holiday visitors. However, improved competitiveness,
continued availability of adequate and affordable air services, and smart marketing are the factors which have been identified
as most likely to shape Ireland's ability to win back tourists. Exchange rates may restore some advantage to British and US
visitors, but discounting and low yields are expected to continue to depress margins. Falling profits within the sector and a
lack of funds for reinvestment could pose threats to the ongoing ability to deliver a quality, value- for- money experience.
"Failure to turn around the high volume British market could stall recovery, making it more difficult and slow," according to
Eamonn McKeon. "With up to a further 10pc fall expected this year in the number of British visitors, 2010 will see 1 million
fewer British visitors than the peak year of 2006."
LOAD-DATE: July 22, 2010
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2010 Media World Ltd.
All Rights Reserved
The Scotsman
Article:
October 15, 2011, Saturday
1 Edition
'Staycations' save the day as overseas tourism falls
BYLINE: BRIAN FERGUSON
SECTION: Pg. 11
LENGTH: 499 words
SPENDING by overseas visitors to Scotland slumped by 17 per cent during the first half of 2011, new figures have
revealed.
Tourism leaders have also admitted the number of foreign visitors was down by 78,000, a drop of 8 per cent compared to
the same period in 2010.
In contrast, the UK has seen a 5 per cent rise in both the number of foreign visitors and what they spend over the same
period. It emerged earlier this week that Britain is now the world's third most-popular tourist destination.
However, overall tourism spending in Scotland for the first half of 2011 is up 3 per cent - thanks to a 6 per cent increase in
the number of UK visitors. Domestic tourism spending was up 13 per cent.
VisitScotland has admitted it is "surprised" by the slump in overseas visitors, and will be "exploring" what is behind the
slump, but said the figures almost certainly reflected the global economic downturn.
The Scottish Government insisted the overall performance of the industry - which has seen the total number of visitors go
up 4 per cent - was "encouraging", and pointed out that the number of visitors from North America had increased by 7 per
cent in the first half of the year.
News of the mixed picture emerged in the wake of The Scotsman revealing that VisitScotland had shelved its main Oscarsstyle awards this year following criticism of the format of the event, which was launched 20 years ago.
Its officials believe although its major European markets have held up well, some countries may be experiencing the same
"staycation" effects which have benefited the industry in the UK.
A spokeswoman said: "The combined domestic and international figures paint a very positive picture, with visits and spend
showing an encouraging 4 per cent growth in visitor numbers and a 3 per cent increase in spend.
"As 84 per cent of our visitors come from the UK, this shows the value of the staycation effect to tourism in Scotland."
Malcolm Roughead, Visit-Scotland's chief executive, said: "Earlier this year, we launched a major UK campaign, including
a stronger focus on the Scottish market, and this is starting to pay dividends.
"However, we must not be complacent - the industry is still suffering from the global economic downturn, and we need to
continue to promote Scotland in key markets."
News of a 17 per cent drop in what overseas visitors are spending in Scotland will be particularly alarming, as the industry
had seen a 5.5 per cent increase in this figure in 2010 compared to the previous 12 months.
Robin Worsnop, chair of the Edinburgh Tourism Action Group, said: "I am very surprised at the figures for overseas
visitors, as this does not match the anecdotal evidence we've had from our members this year. Maybe it is a much different
picture in other parts of the country."
Tourism minister Fergus Ewing said: "The Scottish Government and VisitScotland are working hard domestically and
internationally to position Scotland as a first-class destination for both business and leisure tourism."
LOAD-DATE: October 16, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2011 The Scotsman Publications Ltd.
All Rights Reserved
Article:
The Pantagraph (Bloomington, Illinois)
March 28, 2010 Sunday
Ill. tourism holds its own in '09
BYLINE: Scott Richardson;srichardson@pantagraph.com
SECTION: GO!; Pg. F1
LENGTH: 578 words
When 2009 figures are final, state officials think the numbers will show the global economic downturn slowed the growth
in Illinois tourism seen in recent years.
"Because of the recession, what became in vogue is stay off debt, stay closer to home and do day trips," Jan Kostner,
deputy director of the Illinois Office of Tourism, said in a recent interview with The Pantagraph.
Kostner thinks some regional "pockets" in the state saw increases.
Figures show Old Abe's 200th birthday party helped Springfield, the state's second most popular destination, to weather the
economic storm.
Hotel occupancy there increased by 7 percent during February 2009, the birth month of our beloved 16th president, and 11
percent in March last year. Attendance at Lincoln sites rocketed 26 percent from January through September 2009.
Kostner also expects final numbers will show good results for places like Chicago, Illinois' top tourist draw; Starved Rock,
which is among Illinois' most popular state parks; and Galena, a small town that makes a big mark on the state's tourism
industry. Southern Illinois is also doing well by billing itself as a wine trail and culinary destination.
A plateau on the travel graph shouldn't trouble Illinois too much.
According to Kostner, about 88 million domestic visitors traveled here in 2008, which was down slightly from a year
earlier.
Still, they spent a total of more than $30.89 billion, which was 3 percent more than spent in 2007. More than 1.4 million
overseas visitors traveled to Illinois in 2008, ranking Illinois the sixth most popular U.S. state for international travelers.
As a plus, she said travel-related spending accounted for more than $5.5 billion in federal, state and local tax revenues in
2008, a 1.1 percent increase over 2007.
The tourist taxes save an average Illinois household more than $1,100 in taxes each year. She also noted the economic
impact of tourism directly generated 303,500 jobs within Illinois in 2008, with one in 10 jobs in Illinois directly or
indirectly supported by travel and tourism spending.
"The reality is we are holding our own," she said.
The U.S. Travel Association predicts 2 percent growth nationwide in leisure travel and 2.5 percent growth nationwide in
business travel this year.
Early signs are good. President Obama recently signed into law the U.S. Travel Promotion Act to improve travel to the
United States.
National figures released last week showed real spending on travel and tourism increased at an annual rate of 6.4 percent in
the third quarter of 2009.
In Illinois, travel consumer inquiries were up at the end of 2009 and at the start of 2010.
Advertising campaigns will promote the state's many tourist spots and attractions, including Route 66, and social media like
Facebook are being used to reach more people.
Hartford's 150-foot Lewis & Clark Memorial Tower is opening at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers;
Alton has a new 4,500-seat amphitheater at Riverfront Park; and Peoria is breaking ground on the Caterpillar Visitors
Center.
Visit www.enjoyillinois.com.
Scott Richardson is Pantagraph outdoor editor. Contact him at 309-820-3227 or email srichardson@pantagraph.com Share
stories and read past outdoor and fishing columns at www.pantagraph.com/blogs
.
CUTLINE:
PUB: The Pantagraph
PUB DATE: 20100328
Section: GO!
EDITION: Main
QRKPAGE: 1
PAGE SLUG: F1
XMLFILE: 47477033.txt
DOC NAME: F01 032810 go-trv-column
CREATOR:
LOAD-DATE: March 30, 2010
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: /* //JCL004 EXEC JCL004,COND=(0,NE), // USER=<RPCODE>, // OWNER=I03 // //I1A<RPCODE> JOB
(PR,33FB,0,99,0,,,,,0A0F00FA,0A0C00CQ,A4858,), // 'NEWSVIEW: <RPCODE>', // MSGCLASS=X, // CLASS=I
/*ROUTE XEQ DCC /*JOBPARM S=ANY,PROCLIB=PROCIPOP /*ROUTE PRINT DCC //JOBLIB DD
DSN=PI00.LPA00.EXECLIB,DISP=SHR // DD DSN=PI00.LPA99.EXECLIB,DISP=SHR //RJEIP EXEC MDCRJEDK, //
USER=<RPCODE>, // OWNER=I03 //SYSUT1 DD *
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2010 The Pantagraph
Article:
Los Angeles Times
June 6, 2011 Monday
Home Edition
MONDAY BUSINESS; TRAVEL BRIEFCASE;
Business trips likely to rise; But spending on family vacations isn't forecast to increase
this summer.
BYLINE: Hugo Martin
SECTION: MAIN NEWS; Business Desk; Part A; Pg. 16
LENGTH: 674 words
With summer nearly here, you might expect to see a jump in leisure travel -- a chance for families to take vacations while
the children are out of school.
But with the economy showing signs of rebounding and companies loosening the purse strings on travel budgets, a new
survey suggests that business travel will surge during the summer while leisure travel will remain about the same as a year
earlier.
So the lines at airports may be crowded this summer not with families packing sunscreen and snorkels but with business
travelers wearing suits and lugging briefcases.
The number of business travelers who have committed to rent rooms this summer is about 8% higher than a year earlier,
according to new data collected by Travelclick, a New York company that provides e-commerce products and services to
the hotel industry. But the same report indicates leisure travel will remain about the same as last summer.
Overall, that is good news for the hotel industry because business travelers tend to stay in more expensive rooms while
families on vacation often share rooms at budget hotels.
The revenue that hotels collect per room for business travelers is expected to go up 13% this summer compared with the
same period last year, while revenue from rooms rented by leisure travelers is expected to rise only 4%, according to
Travelclick.
"This summer, business travel has been and continues to be strong as the U.S. economy continues to recover," said Tim
Hart, executive vice president of business intelligence at Travelclick.
United to keep first-class seats
Although some airlines have eliminated first-class seats on international flights over the last few years, United Airlines has
announced it will not follow suit even after it completes the merger with Continental Airlines this year.
First-class seats have been disappearing from international flights for years, but that trend accelerated during the recession
when business travelers were forced to cut costs by flying in business or economy seats. To accommodate such fliers,
many airlines improved business-class seats, making them the de facto first-class seats.
Delta Air Lines, for example stopped offering first-class seats on international flights years ago, opting instead to sell a
"business elite" class. Last year, Qantas Airways replaced first-class seats with business-class seats on all its Boeing 747400 planes, saying it was responding to "changing demands."
"The economy has dictated the move away from premium seats, especially during the recession," said Rick Seaney,
founder of farecompare.com.
On international flights, Continental offers only economy seating and a "BusinessFirst" section that includes special meals
and "flat bed" seats that fully recline.
"United is keeping first-class seats in order to compete internationally with Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France,
Singapore and others, and to distinguish itself from Delta and US Airways," said George Hobica, head of
airfarewatchdog.com.
Alaska to expand Wi-Fi service
Alaska Airlines plans to expand Wi-Fi services to more than 90% of its fleet of 117 Boeing 737s by the end of the month.
In November, the carrier had wireless Internet on about 70% of its fleet.
Last week's announcement came only days after the Seattle airline said that it was issuing new iPad tablet computers to its
pilots to replace the 25-pound flight manuals that they take with them into the cockpit.
Alaska will be handing out the 1.5-pound iPads to all its pilots by mid-June. The devices will include a reading application
that will let the pilots scroll through hundreds of pages of manuals, reference cards and other material.
But pilots will not get a break from the Federal Aviation Administration rules that forbid the use of electronic devices
during takeoffs and landings. Besides, Internet access on jetliners is available only in the cabin, not in the cockpit.
And the iPads won't have computer games, joked Alaska spokeswoman Marianne Lindsey. "The pilots will not be playing
Angry Birds during takeoff."
hugo.martin@latimes.com
LOAD-DATE: June 6, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2011 Los Angeles Times
All Rights Reserved
Article:
Business Wire
August 4, 2011 Thursday 2:37 PM GMT
Consumers Scaling Back Summer Vacations in Response to Economy, First Command
Reports; First Command Financial Behaviors Index® reveals top eight cost-cutting
strategies of middle-class families
LENGTH: 728 words
DATELINE: FORT WORTH, Texas
Frugal living is the theme for family vacations this year, with nearly two-thirds of middle-class Americans changing their
summer getaway plans as a result of the economy.
The latest findings of the First Command Financial Behaviors Index® reveal that 63 percent of consumers are making one
or more changes to their vacation plans, up sharply from 51 percent a year ago. Top cost-cutting strategies of the Middle
Class include:
1. Staying closer to home (29 percent).
2. Taking shorter vacations (24 percent).
3. Driving rather than flying (22 percent).
4. Taking "staycations" (20 percent).
5. (tie) Cooking while on vacation rather than eating out (19 percent).
5. (tie) Combining family visits and vacations (19 percent).
6. Staying with friends rather than in a hotel (13 percent).
7. Traveling with friends to save money (10 percent).
Many of these strategies have been growing in popularity during the economic downturn. Just under half of respondents
have been staying closer to home for their summer vacation for two consecutive years, and 46 percent report that this is
their second year of driving instead of flying to vacation destinations. Furthermore, one quarter of respondents have been
renting a house or condo instead of staying at a hotel and/or combining family visit and summer vacations for more than
three years.
"These results reinforce the New Frugality that has taken hold of the Middle Class," said Scott Spiker, CEO of First
Command Financial Services, Inc. "Summer vacations are still an important part of American family life. Just 12 percent
of survey respondents say they are not taking a vacation this year. But among the vacationing majority, plans are based on
fiscally responsible behaviors. Saving more, spending less and reducing debt are the guiding principles for middle-income
families this summer."
About the First Command Financial Behaviors Index®
Compiled by Sentient Decision Science, Inc., the First Command Financial Behaviors Index® assesses trends among the
American public's financial behaviors, attitudes and intentions through a monthly survey of approximately 1,000 U.S.
consumers aged 25 to 70 with annual household incomes of at least $50,000. Results are reported quarterly. The margin of
error is +/- 3.1 percent with a 95 percent level of confidence. www.firstcommand.com/research
About Sentient Decision Science, Inc.
Sentient Decision Science was commissioned by First Command to compile the Financial Behaviors Index®. SDS is a
behavioral science and consumer psychology consulting firm with special vertical expertise within the financial services
industry. SDS specializes in advanced research methods and statistical analysis of behavioral and attitudinal data.
About First Command
First Command Financial Services and its subsidiaries, including First Command Bank and First Command Financial
Planning, assist American families in their efforts to build wealth, reduce debt and pursue their lifetime financial goals and
dreams-focusing on consumer behavior as the first and most powerful determinant of results. Through knowledgeable
advice and coaching of the financial behaviors conducive to success, First Command Financial Advisors have built
trustworthy, lasting relationships with hundreds of thousands of client families since 1958.
First Command Financial Services, Inc., is the parent of First Command Financial Planning, Inc. (Member SIPC, FINRA),
First Command Insurance Services, Inc. and First Command Bank. Financial planning services and investment products,
including securities, are offered by First Command Financial Planning, Inc. Insurance products and services are offered by
First Command Insurance Services, Inc. in all states except Montana, where as required by law, insurance products and
services are offered by First Command Financial Services, Inc. (a separate Montana domestic corporation). Banking
products and services are offered by First Command Bank. In certain states, as required by law, First Command Insurance
Services, Inc. does business as a separate domestic corporation. Securities products are not FDIC insured, have no bank
guarantee and may lose value. A financial plan, by itself, cannot assure that retirement or other financial goals will be met.
CONTACT: First Command Financial Services, Inc.
Mark Leach, 817-569-2419
Media Relations
msleach@firstcommand.com
www.firstcommand.com
URL: http://www.businesswire.com
LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Business Editors; Economics & Financial Writers
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newswire
Copyright 2011 Business Wire, Inc.
LIBR 244 - Henkin
Exercise 4 Problem 5: 5. Find recent articles about the Google Books lawsuit, settlement, and
implications for libraries. Use both Nexis.com and the Web and compare results.
Summary:
My research quickly revealed that this lawsuit has been ongoing for several years, initially filed in Fall 2005, with the
settlement announced in October 2008. Several sites noted a deadline of September 4, 2009 for institutions to opt out of
the settlement.
Web search (Yahoo.com)
Searching the world-wide web for information is a very different process than using Dialog or Nexis. With the
subscription databases, I accept individual articles, or examine them for additional relevant keywords or search terms,
particularly controlled-vocabulary search terms, then redo my search strategy. With a web search, I find myself using
hyperlinks in articles to jump from related article to related article, much like a researchers uses citations in scholarly
articles to find additional information. The search engines can also be extremely limited in their ability to filter results for
more precise searching. For example, Yahoo’s ability to search by date is minimal: a user can only choose the past day,
week, or month, and a user cannot sort results by date.
First Search terms: googlebooks settlement
In the context of this problem, I‘d consider “recent articles” to be within the past 6-8 months. Since the most recent news
was the March 2009 announcement that the settlement was denied, any implications for libraries after this event are
currently moot, since no one knows the eventual outcome.
With my initial search < googlebooks settlement>, Yahoo “suggested” I also try “google books settlement” (with a space).
In both searches, the first result was http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/ (which rolls over to
http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/ , “the settlement administration website for the Google Book Search
Copyright Class Action Settlement.” It notes that on March 22, 2011, “the Court denied the parties' request for final
settlement approval. The parties are considering their next steps and are no longer accepting Claim Forms.”
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6650383.html has a website of links discussing the proposed settlement. The
site focused on how libraries would deal with it, but no link is more recent than 2009.
http://www.lib.umich.edu/copyright/news/google-book-search-settlement The University of Michigan was part of the
Digitization project, although not part of the initial lawsuit, but agreed to remain in the “class.” Yahoo’s search result was
a news item from the university’s copyright office publicizing the deadline to opt out of the class. I used that page to click
through to other pages at that website (their news items are filed by month), and found an article written two days after
the denial, noting how the school would suffer by the decision, but noting that the scanning process would be continuing.
http://www.lib.umich.edu/news/paul-courant-google-book-settlement
The article is:
Paul Courant on the Google Book Settlement
(Note: Courant is the University Librarian and Dean of Libraries)
News | March 24th, 2011
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Manhattan rejected the proposed settlement of the lawsuit over Google’s mass
digitization project. The ruling is disappointing but expected. Had the settlement been approved, we would have
opened our vast collection to library users everywhere, and would have been able to provide the broadest services
ever conceived to users with print disabilities.
Notwithstanding the decision, Google continues to scan our books and we continue to use the scanned works for
preservation, indexing and search, linguistic research, and to meet the needs of those with print
disabilities. HathiTrust perseveres in its mission, and our Copyright Review Management System proceeds with the
work of identifying public domain titles that HathiTrust then makes fully available to the world. (For HathiTrust’s
response to the decision, visit www.hathitrust.org/hathitrust_asa_response.)
I’m hopeful that the rejection of the settlement will finally spur Congress to make real progress toward orphan
works legislation.
Google has not yet declared its next steps except to affirm that they will continue to scan works from our library and
other partner libraries. The Library and HathiTrust will continue to use our digitized material to the maximum extent
lawfully and technically possible. We will also continue to seek ways to make the contents of the Library accessible
to everyone.
Search Continues:
Since University of Michigan participated in the digitization project and works with HathiTrust, I searched their news items
for more recent information on how the decision impacted the library. The next relevant item was not until May:
MLibrary launches project to identify orphan works
http://www.lib.umich.edu/marketing-and-communications/news/mlibrary-launches-project-identify-orphan-works
News | May 16th, 2011
The University of Michigan Library’s Copyright Office is launching the first serious effort to identify orphan works
among the in-copyright holdings of the HathiTrust Digital Library, which is funding the project.
The vast majority of HathiTrust’s holdings are in-copyright (73%). An unknown percentage of these are so-called
“orphans,” that is, in-copyright works whose owners cannot be identified or located. The lack of hard data on the
number of orphans in the corpus is a significant impediment to the creation of a legal or policy-based framework
that would allow scholars and researchers to access these works.
In a paper recently published by the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), John Wilkin, Executive
Director of HathiTrust, extrapolates from known statistics about the corpus, and speculates that the majority of
works published since 1923 may in fact be orphans (“Bibliographic Indeterminacy and the Scale of Problems and
Opportunities of ‘Rights’ in Digital Collection Building”; http://www.clir.org/pubs/ruminations/01wilkin/wilkin.html).
If that’s indeed the case, Wilkin says the implications for scholars and researchers, particularly those studying the
20th century, are enormous. The Copyright Office’s work to identify orphans will more precisely ascertain the scale
of the problem Wilkin calls “bibliographic indeterminacy.” The project will also advance the efforts of an informal
but growing group of libraries seeking to develop best practices for identifying orphans.
Melissa Levine, U-M Library’s lead copyright officer, says that the project will initially focus on 1923-1963 US works,
specifically those determined to be in-copyright by the U-M’s Copyright Review Management System (CRMS).
Among the more than 100,000 works thus far examined by the CRMS, which is funded by a grant from the Institute
of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), 45% have been determined to be in copyright.
This first phase of the orphan works identification project will develop procedures that can eventually be used by
other HathiTrust partner institutions to expedite a task that will ultimately require the hand-checking of millions of
volumes.
“We’re also going to create a mechanism to publicize bibliographic information about the orphans, to give their
‘parents’ the opportunity to claim them,” says Levine. She hopes that all extant copyright holders will come forward,
and make informed decisions about the status of their work in the HathiTrust Digital Library. But it’s highly likely that
the majority of orphans are just that—without any surviving person or entity to claim ownership.
The Copyright Office is part of MPublishing, the primary academic publishing enterprise of the University of
Michigan. It offers copyright information and assistance to the U-M community, and participates in the global
conversation about copyright and libraries.
===
I found a good analysis from Stanford University, at
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2009_02_calter_google_settlement.html . Again, however, it was
written in February 2009, before the denial of the settlement.
It includes the two following paragraphs, relevant to the problem:
“Note that the settlement is between Google and parties that sued. Participating libraries were not sued, and
therefore are not party to the settlement. The settlement includes a structure under which libraries participate, and
Stanford is currently in negotiations to become a Fully Participating Library under the terms of the settlement. Four
of the five initial participating libraries have endorsed the settlement, and are expected to participate.”
and
Key Points for Libraries








In-copyright but out-of-print materials in the Google library become accessible
Free full text access at public libraries and higher-education institutions
Accommodated services for the print disabled
Free preview and "Find in a library" continue
Institutional subscriptions and individual purchase available
Partner libraries receive working copies of contributed works for searching and web services complementary
to Google's;
Digital copies of works digitized by Google provided to the partner libraries for long term preservation
Research corpus of the full database will be made available for advanced analytical research
Using the breadcrumbs links on the page, I was able to find other analyses on copyright and the Google project. Again, I
went from one article to another.
Continued search:
I began a second day by searching for <"google books" settlement libraries> with yahoo.com. While Yahoo! may not
provide as many results as fast as Google, I find the instant-search mechanism Google uses to be visually annoying.
The third result described a less-discussed implication for libraries if the settlement had been approved: the requirement
that libraries pay Google for copies if they charge patrons for copies. The site is hosted by Mary Minow, one of our SLIS
professors, and Peter Hirtle, a recognized authority on copyright law.
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/08/the-undiscussed-danger-to-libraries-in-the-google-books-settlement.html
August 16, 2009
The undiscussed danger to libraries in the Google Books Settlement
There is an awful lot to read and digest in the hundreds of pages in the Google Books Settlement, and librarians have
been at the forefront in identifying important issues. Jonathan Band's excellent "Guides for the Perplexed" and the
recent concern with privacy issues (see also EPIC's overview of the Settlement and privacy issues) are just two of the
ways that librarians are striving to make a useful product even better.
Nevertheless, I have been surprised at the lack of discussion in the library community about what I feel is one of the
most problematic features of the settlement: printing fees in the Public Access Service. The Public Access Service is
the free license that every public library can receive that allows that library to access the proposed books database
from one of the library's computers. Users are allowed to view the entire text of the book (unlike the Consumer
Purchase model, which only allows you to see up to 20% of the book without paying), but they are not allowed to
download the book. Users can, however, print out pages from the book.
Here is the kicker: if the library charges a fee for printing (and how many libraries can allow users to print for free?),
then they are required by Section 4.8(a)(ii) of the Agreement to charge users for the printing. Google will collect the
money on behalf of libraries and pass it on to the Registry. Google has agreed to pay the cost of the printing for the
first five years or $3 million, whichever comes first.
It is standard practice in many libraries to charge for the cost of paper and toner associated with printing from
networked resources. I cannot think of a single licensed resource, however, that also wants libraries to pay a use fee
for that printing. It is the equivalent of not only having users pay for costs of photocopying, but also having to send a
royalty check to the Copyright Clearance Center for every page they print. And note that there is no provision for
fair use in this requirement - printing even one page will result in the payment of a royalty to the Books Rights
Registry.
The privacy implications of this requirement are tremendous as well. Google could require users to provide
identification and a credit card to pay for the printing, with obvious implications for reading anonymously. But if
they were going to do this, the feature could have been implemented as part of the Consumer Purchase model;
there would be no reason to limit it to Public Access Service subscriptions. So that means that somehow the
libraries are going to have be involved, tracking the amount of printing that is done by users, capturing payments,
and passing the money along to Google to give to the Registry.
Section 4.8(a)(ii) marks a radical change in the relationship between libraries and rights holders. Thanks to Section
108 of the Copyright Act, libraries are not responsible for royalties that may be required as a product of patron
copying. As long as the library posts the proper notices and has no knowledge that violations are occurring, it also
has no liability for potentially infringing acts by users. The Google Books Settlement overturns almost 75 years of
law and practice and makes the library (or possibly Google, if it acts as an agent for the library) an active monitor of
what its patrons choose to reproduce. And if the Books Rights Registry can demand this, other vendors will start
requiring it as well. I imagine that in 10 years, every license agreement that libraries sign will stipulate a royalty for
user printing, and mandatory licenses for photocopying may not be far behind.
Privacy, anti-trust, and orphan works are important issues. But am I wrong in thinking that this innocuous-sounding
little clause in the middle of the Agreement may do more to change the way libraries operate than other element of
the Settlement?
Posted by Peter Hirtle on August 16, 2009
Comments to his posting highlighted other negative implications for libraries:
Comments
Karen, the Public Access Service is a mixed bag alright. I assume that it was included in the settlement as a way of
trying to make Google and the plaintiffs look like they had the public's interest in mind, but of course it is structured
in such a way that no library may actually use it. It reminds me a bit of Section 1201(d) in the DMCA, which allows a
library to hack into a commercial system in order to decide if it wants to subscribe to that system. No librarian was
ever asked whether this was something we wanted. Similarly, the settlement would have been tons better if
librarians had been active participants in the negotiation.
Having said that, I do need to come to Google's defense a little bit. They are offering to libraries something that they
don't have now - namely free access to the full text of possibly 10 million books. Maybe this is a gift horse we should
look in the mouth, but I can't fault them for wanting to give us a gift.
And to answer some of your questions, public libraries can purchase an institutional subscription (and up to two
public libraries can be part of the institutional subscription beta testing). Since not having to pay for printing is part
of an institutional subscription, then the public library could avoid the printing fees by subscribing instead of using
the free Public Access Service.
The one limitation on the Institutional Subscription for public libraries is that there is no remote access included
except with the Registry's approval: see Section 4.1(a)(iv) of the Settlement agreement. Since this is in the pricing
section on the institutional subscription and since remote access can be offered with the Registry's approval, my
guess would be that the Registry has no idea at this time of how to price remote access in public libraries when,
sometimes, patrons can be anyone in an entire state (or maybe country). I would assume that this will be a feature
in the future.
Posted by: Peter Hirtle | August 20, 2009 at 03:25 PM
Excellent topic. Librarians, this is all the more reason to be diligent about retaining and preserving our hard-copy
holdings.
The bottom line is: for-profit enterprises exist to make a profit. If they don't make money, they go out of business.
When we "partner" with for-profit enterprises, by default we WILL pay, one way or another.
Posted by: Sue Gardner | August 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Just to point out that in general public libraries are disadvantaged in the Google settlement. Yes, they get one "free"
terminal per building. (Imagine managing that in a large main library!) Unlike educational institutions (who must pay
for access) public libraries cannot provide remote access to their Google Books service. This means that users must
go into the library building to use a resource that resides on a global, ubiquitous network. It is not clear in the
wording of the settlement if 1) public libraries can purchase additional access; 2) if they do purchase such service
whether it will be under the same rules as the education license, e.g. whether they will be allowed to provide
remote access; and 3) if they would have to continue to pay printing royalties on any additional "seats" they
purchase.
The upshot is that the public normally served by public libraries for access to hard copy and electronic resources is
being singled out for a lower level of service. I have been told that this reflects the AAPs general feeling that public
libraries are a threat to the publishing business.
Posted by: Karen Coyle | August 19, 2009 at 05:11 PM
John, you raise a good point that there might be workable solutions that could protect patron privacy. Two concerns,
however. First, this is one more imposition on the public libraries that want to use this supposedly "beneficial" perk
included in the settlement. In addition to freeing up a computer to access Google, now you have to provide a
dedicated printer as well. Second, the Settlement says that Google must design the Public Access Service to allow
printing and that Google will collect the printing fees. Google could design the system to ignore the library's existing
reproduction fee mechanisms and instead have a second method (such as credit cards or PayPal) for the royalty
fees.
Most of all, though, I am worried about the precedent this sets for other library reproductions. I realize that the
Public Access Service is different in that the library does not own the material to start with. If this is a fee that is due
because the Public Access Service user now has access to a title that was not in their library before, then the printing
fee should be going to the library that holds that title (much as you sometimes have to pay to get an ILL copy). If the
fee is going to the Registry because of copyright, then I think it sets a very dangerous precedent for libraries.
Posted by: Peter Hirtle | August 19, 2009 at 01:54 PM
The precedent for other services may be worrisome, but for any library using a dedicated terminal for the public
access service (which, if its popularity is as predicted, would be useful), there seems to me a simple solution to the
privacy problem: make that dedicated terminal use a dedicated printer, with a different per-page charge from the
other printers.
(So, if most black and white printers in the library cost 10 cents per page, and the royalty as set by the BRR is 5 cents
per page, the terminal's printer will be priced at 15 cents per page.)
Many libraries are already set up for differential printing costs (some, for instance, have color printers that cost
more than B&W printers). This would seem to fall into the same category. Neither Google nor the library would need
to know who printed what; just that so many pages were printed from that termimal.
Posted by: John Mark Ockerbloom | August 17, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Thank you for bringing this up as it is not something our library is even aware of. I am not even sure the Google
Books situation is even being discussed much on the state level. How can we when we are so busy trying to survive
budget cuts?
In any event, there are existing services for which this is already a problem. Consider Netlibrary, Overdrive, and soon
Amazon Kindle style services. In some ways these kinds of services nullify the privacy protections of the Patriot Act.
In others, it balloons the cost requirements to run a library. In others, it exploits the concept of copyright and public
domain and morphs it into a contractual license agreement that few patrons will read. I am rather frustrated with
the power grab and control over information that is being forced on libraries. Libraries exist as a repository of
knowledge which is supposed to be freely available to the people. I think we are quickly losing a national treasure.
Posted by: Esther | August 16, 2009 at 05:12 PM
The second result for this search was a page sponsored by the American Library Association. One article, although written
only a few weeks after the settlement was declined, also described implications for libraries, particular post-denial.
The site is http://wo.ala.org/gbs/ , and the link to this article is http://wo.ala.org/gbs/2011/04/01/library-copyrightalliance-releases-fourth-guide-to-google-books-proposed-settlement-following-judge%E2%80%99s-decision/ .
Library Copyright Alliance releases fourth guide to Google Books proposed settlement following
judge’s decision
April 1, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) announces the release of“A Guide for the Perplexed Part
IV: The Rejection of the Google Books Settlement,” an analysis of the latest decision in the Google Books Search case
and its potential effect on libraries. The LCA is comprised of the American Library Association (ALA), the Association
of Research Libraries (ARL), and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL).
This guide is the latest in a series prepared by LCA legal counsel Jonathan Band to help inform the library community
about this landmark legal dispute.
In the Guide Part IV, Band explains why the Court rejected the proposed class action settlement, which would have
allowed Google to engage in a wide variety of activities using scanned books.
As stated in the guide, “The court concluded that the settlement was unfair because a substantial number of class
members [i.e., authors and publishers] voiced significant concerns with the settlement.… However, the validity of
the objections seemed less important to the court than the fact that many class members raised them.”
As for the impact of the decision on libraries, Band writes that while it is too early to say what the parties will do
next, “it appears that both the challenges and the opportunities presented to libraries by the settlement when it was
announced in the fall of 2008 are growing narrower and more distant.”
Past guides and other LCA materials related to the case are available on the LCA website.
The “Guide” referred to is a pdf document available from the above link. The article states,
“In any event, however, it appears that both the challenges and the opportunities presented to libraries by the
settlement when it was announced in the fall of 2008 are growing narrower and more distant. The greatest
opportunity for libraries, access to a relatively comprehensive institutional subscription, had already been reduced
significantly compared to the original proposed settlement, and is barred by this decision unless reversed if
appealed.”
This page also did have a very recent news item, from July 19, reporting that the judge set a September deadline for the
parties to design a plan. I followed the included link to a Reuters.com news story.
With this additional information, I researched this progress. Since yahoo.com has limited date searching capability, I tried
to use Bing. When I searched for < "U.S. District Judge Denny Chin" google books>, I got zero results. I expanded my
search to <”Denny Chin" google books>, and got two results, both from October 2011. Neither gave me any information
on what happened with the September deadline (which has now passed).
I also tried < judge chin google books> with the same two results.
I decided to compare Bing with Google. In the first ten results at Google, one was from the New York Times in September;
the rest were from March. The September article reported the events at a hearing on that day, at which the judge
imposed a schedule upon the litigants. While that article was a clear summary of current status, it did not address any
implications for libraries.
Accordingly, I returned to my earlier search strategy, to find a few more articles on the implications, as if the settlement
had been approved.
With the first ten results, two were Wikipedia articles, but the rest discussed implications for libraries in some way.
Two were mentioned above: the ALA site, and LibraryLaw blog. One, from Google itself, listed only the benefits (no
surprise):
https://sites.google.com/a/pressatgoogle.com/googlebookssettlement/what-people-are-saying-2/settlement-benefitslibraries-and-library-users
What People Are Saying: Support for the Settlement
Benefits for Libraries and Library Users
Paul N. Courant, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, University of Michigan
"The print collections of the world's libraries are literally turning to dust, as hundreds of millions of books printed on
acidic paper age and become brittle in library stacks around the globe. ... Our partnership with Google, which the
settlement will preserve, will enable us to preserve approximately eight million works in less than a decade. Given
the scope of Google Book Search (GBS), this will mean -- despite the ravages of war, weather, neglect, and time -that GBS can preserve for the world in excess of fifty million unique works that comprise the bulk of printed human
knowledge. Because they are being digitize now, works that would have been lost forever have the opportunity to
exist in perpetuity. This settlement will enable preservation of our human heritage to to continue at unprecedented
scale." (US District Court filing, 09/04/09)
Michael A. Keller, University Librarian, Stanford University
"Under this [settlement's] vision, American citizens anywhere, especially in small towns with small libraries, might
have new opportunities of discovery. The Google Book Search project has the promise to contribute to K-12
education by providing a rich store of information and expression for school teachers and students everywhere. Just
the indexing of every word and phrase of the books digitized by the Google Book Search will open the content of
thousands and thousands of libraries in the U.S. alone, thus increasing the return on the investments made on
library collections. Stanford’s participation in the Google Book Search project is another way for it to contribute to
the betterment of the lives of all Americans." (US District Court filing, 09/08/09)
Leroy Watson, Legislative Director, National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry
"Even though rural libraries and schools have smaller budgets and fewer resources than their urban and suburban
counterparts, the cost of a good education consumes a large percentage of local tax dollars, and adequate funding
for education is a constant concern in rural America. By availing themselves of the agreement’s free and affordable
services, local libraries and schools can grow their resources without busting their local governments' budgets,
leaving more funds for other elements of their public education systems." (US District Court filing, 09/03/09)
Jonathan Brown, President, Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, on behalf of
Associations for Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, and South Carolina
"While librarians in academic and public libraries have worked hard to encourage the interchange of resources the
cost pressures facing educational institutions have limited the ability of these traditional solutions to continue to
increase content available for students and scholars. We believe creating a wide supply of digitized resourceshas the
possibility for reducing costs while simultaneously expanding the universe of resources.... We believe the proposed
settlement will offer benefits to users of content in colleges and universities large and small." (Letter to Judge Denny
Chin, 8/14/09)
The Washington Post Editorial
"Some call it Alexandria 2.0, and the comparison with the great library of antiquity is apt. Google has digitized
millions of books, and if its proposed class-action settlement with their authors and publishers passes muster, these
books -- formerly the province of college libraries and research institutions -- will be available to everyone."
(Washington Post, 8/8/09)
New York Times Editorial
"Google’s effort could create new interest in millions of out-of-print books, which would be made available at no
cost at public libraries. That means that a student at a community college or a freelance writer could access the
same books as a Harvard professor." (New York Times, 7/29/09)
Lateef Mtima, Director, and Steven Jamar, Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property & Social
Justice, Inc.
"The digitization of text coupled with the ability to access it through a program like Google's Book Search can be a
boon to those with heretofore limited access to such materials. ... The potential to have a great, positive impact on
social justice through providing ready affordable access to information is immense." ("Copyright, Social Justice, and
the Digitization of Knowledge," 7/28/09)
Michael Healy, Executive Director of the Book Industry Study Group and expected Executive Director of the
Book Rights Registry
"...because the settlement agreement gives free access to this corpus of works to every public library building in the
United States, you have to see the revolutionary character of that, in my view, because what it’s effectively doing is
turning every public library building in this country into, effectively, a world-class research facility by giving them free
access to this online collection, if you like, of millions of out of print books. And obviously, as people know, the
settlement allows for the creation of a database available under subscription to every library in the United States."
(Interview with Christopher Kenneally, Copyright Clearance Center, 6/18/09)
Paul Courant, Dean of Libraries and Harold T. Shapiro Collegiate Professor of Public Policy, University of
Michigan
"The result [of the settlement] will be ubiquitous online access to a collection unparalleled in size and scope,
preservation of the scholarly and cultural record embodied in the collections of great research libraries, new lines of
research, and greatly expanded access to the world's printed work for persons with print disabilities. ... The works of
all participating libraries will be available in this product. Thus, Michigan's superb collections will be augmented by
those of other great libraries, with the result that all of our students, and the general public, will have more works
available to them than any single library can provide." (Ann Arbor News, 06/07/09)
Paul Courant, Dean of Libraries and Harold T. Shapiro Collegiate Professor of Public Policy, University of
Michigan
"The Google settlement provides a mechanism whereby the print works of the 20th century will be searchable,
findable, readable and generally usable online, with large parts of the text readable online for free. All of this is of
tremendous public and scholarly value, and no one other than Google has shown any willingness to make the
investment necessary to get the job done." (Washington Post, 5/24/09)
Arthur Klebanoff, President, Scott Meredith Literary Agency and ebook publisher, RosettaBooks
"We’re at a point now where there’s a critical mass of ebook availability,’ [Klebanoff] observed. So the settlement
‘takes digital literacy for printed material to a new level and, in doing so, introduces a much broader set of people to
what I’d loosely call digital reading. That can only be good, in the long term sense, for ebooks.’” (LibraryJournal.com,
4/3/09)
Michael Keller, Academic Librarian, Stanford University and Publisher, Stanford University Press
"Lord Byron in Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage writes: 'He who ascends to mountain-tops shall find the loftiest peaks most
wrapt in clouds and snow.' Extensive library collections formerly accessible in a few, well-supported institutions
were effectively 'wrapt in clouds and snow.' Soon they will become accessible to multitudes of readers in many
locations." (Association of College and Research Libraries Publications, 01/2009)
Wayne Bivens-Tatum, Philosophy and Religion Librarian, Princeton University
“The Google Books settlement seems like very good news to me. I'm assuming the cost of subscribing to the full
Google Books service won't be prohibitive for most libraries, and that means that a lot more people will get a lot
more access to even copyrighted books.” (Academic Librarian Blog, 10/31/08)
John Etchemendy, Provost, Stanford University
"This proposed settlement has far-reaching potential for making books more broadly available to the American
public and higher education, and is consistent with Stanford's mission of sharing knowledge. We are currently in
negotiations with Google regarding Stanford's participation. This proposed settlement is a very productive step, and
we applaud it." (Stanford News Service, 10/29/08)
Daniel Greenstein, Vice Provost, University of California
“This settlement will help provide broad access to [the millions of books held in our libraries as public trust] as well
as other public benefits, and it also promises to promote innovation in scholarship. For these reasons, UC is pleased
to have given input along with Universities of Michigan and Stanford in support of the public good, and we look
forward to playing a continuing role by contributing UC library volumes to the development of this rich online
resource." (UC Press Release, 10/28/08)
Edward Van Gemert, Associate Director of University Libraries, University of Wisconsin-Madison
"The settlement ... introduces a model for institutional subscriptions that will provide broad access to copyright
material for academic institutions. And it will greatly expand the amount of public domain material that is accessible
to all. These elements of the settlement should ultimately prove beneficial to the University of Wisconsin-Madison
community, and we intend to make our collections available for [the Google Book Search] project." (10/28/08)
Michael Keller, Academic Librarian, Stanford University and Publisher, Stanford University Press
"With other libraries, those of the University of California and the University of Michigan, we have been negotiating
for almost two years with Google and the plaintiffs to shape this agreement for the public good. We believe that the
proposed settlement offers significant benefits for readers everywhere and therefore society as a whole, providing
easy access to texts via Google to libraries throughout the country, and expanding dramatically the amount of
material that can be freely read (not just searched) by the public." (UC Press Release, 10/28/08)
Rob Hof, BusinessWeek
"As a book lover, what I find the coolest thing about the deal is that eventually, I'll be able to visit most any library
and, using at least one terminal that will be set up at each library, view digital versions of these books for free
(though I'll have to pay to print out pages). It's nice that all the sides managed to agree on something that is
demonstrably a good thing for all of us." (The Tech Beat Blog, 10/28/08)
The Copyright Advisory Office at Columbia University presented a long page of links to opinions and other resources about
the settlement and the denial, including several discussing “the next steps.” They, in fact, state that “as a result [of this
denial], the implications of the proposed settlement (as posted below the asterisks on this page) are at least postponed
and likely obsolete. For a sample of views and analyses of the case, and its meaning for authors, publishers, libraries, and
readers, have a look at the following links. (2011)”
The next article reports that three library groups asked the judge to retain strong control over the settlement. The two
main concerns were potential cost and user privacy:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/libraries-ask-judge-to-monitor-google-books-settlement/
May 4, 2009, 7:48 pm
Libraries Ask Judge to Monitor Google Books Settlement
By MIGUEL HELFT
Three groups representing libraries, including the American Library Association, the largest such group in the United
States, have asked a federal judge to exercise “vigorous oversight” over a class-action settlement between Google,
authors and publishers.
The two other groups are the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association of Research
Libraries. The groups did not oppose the settlement, but in a court filing they asked Judge Denny Chin of Federal
District Court to provide continuing oversight of it, to ensure that the prices Google charges for subscriptions to its
digital library aren’t artificially high because of a lack of competition. They have also asked Judge Chin to ensure that
the privacy of readers of books made available online by Google is protected.
Several other groups have raised issues about the Google settlement, including concerns that it would grant Google
a monopoly over millions of “orphan works” — books whose authors cannot be found or whose rights holders are
unknown. The Justice Department has opened an inquiry into possible antitrust issues related to the deal.
Google, the Author’s Guild and the Association of American Publishers have defended the deal, saying it will be good
for authors, publishers and the public. And they have said it will not prevent others from competing with Google.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online civil liberties group, has said that it, too, plans to ask the court to
ensure that Google does not monitor the reading habits of users of its Book Search service.
“What we’d like to see Google do is make affirmative representations as to how they will protect privacy,” said Cindy
Cohn, legal director of the foundation.
Unlike the libraries, which are merely asking for court oversight, Ms. Cohn said that the E.F.F. was working with a
group of authors who plan to oppose the settlement unless adequate privacy guarantees are put in place. Ms. Cohn
said the E.F.F. was talking to Google about such guarantees.
“We represent a group of authors and publishers who feel their readership will go down unless there are privacy
protections,” she said.
In an interview earlier this year, Alexander Macgillivray, the Google lawyer who led the settlement negotiations, said
that Google would take privacy into account. “We think long and hard about privacy issues, and we are certainly
aware of the important privacy concerns with people’s reading,” he said.
Mr. Macgillivray said that the product that would result from the settlement had not been designed yet. “Certainly
in the design we will be mindful of privacy,” he added.
The filing from the libraries is available here.
The last result I retained was a pdf document written before the denial.
http://www.mlanet.org/government/gov_pdf/2009_october_google_books.pdf
It’s only three pages, and while it has an author, is not dated. (MLANET is the site for the Medical Library Association.) It
repeats some information from the ALA’s “Perplexed” series, and lists some pros and cons for libraries. References have
been omitted for brevity.
Google Books Settlement: What Does It Mean for Libraries?
Submitted by Karen M. Albert, AHIP, Chair, Ad Hoc Committee for Advocating Scholarly Communications
One of the most complex and significant challenges facing libraries today is how to handle online books, a
realm currently dominated by the Google Books project and impending settlement. The original agreement
reached October 28, 2008, with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) was
based on litigation over Google’s scanning project, which is producing a vast online database of books
provided by major research libraries and other sources [1]. The far-reaching settlement would create an
enormous digital library controlled by Google and has important implications for libraries of all types.
Understanding the project and terms of the settlement is no easy task. It is currently under review by the
Federal District Court in Manhattan, and Google and other parties involved have been given until
November 9, 2009, to submit a revised agreement for the court to examine. A final hearing could take place
in late December or early January. Objections of interested parties, such as librarians, academics, authors,
and public interest groups stimulated reassessment of the original agreement [2]. According to the
American Library Association (ALA) website devoted to this project and settlement
(www.wo.ala.org/gbs/), “there is a chance the proposed agreement will change substantially. The parties
are now in renegotiation of the Settlement terms” [3].
Important Elements for Libraries
ALA’s Guide for the Perplexed: Libraries and the Google Library Project Settlement indicates that “the
settlement presents significant challenges and opportunities for libraries” [1, 2]. The guide outlines the
settlement’s provisions and focuses on sections that stand to directly affect libraries. The following are
some of the major areas of impact detailed in this document.
• A Book Rights Registry (BRR) will be created to provide a mechanism for Google to use to pay
rights holders for permission to display more text of books than is currently displayed online via
Google Books. Google will also generate income via advertising and sales to individual users for
access to full text. Google will retain a portion of these funds, with another portion going to the
BRR.
• The settlement addresses three categories of books:
o in copyright, commercially available
o in copyright, not commercially available
o public domain
• The settlement will primarily impact the in-copyright books that are no longer commercially
available, estimated by Google to encompass 70% of all books. Different rules for the amount of
access provided are spelled out for each category of book, with public domain books being
available for complete full-text display and more limited displays provided for the other categories.
Users will be able to purchase online access to full text of in-copyright, not commercially available
books, with the ability to copy and paste or print the entire book.
• Google will provide free public access service (via terminals) to each public library and not-for-profit
institution of higher education that requests it, up to a specified limit.
• Google will make available institutional subscriptions to the entire in-copyright, not commercially
available books, or to discipline-specific subsets, with Google and BRR setting the price for these
subscriptions.
See the complete ALA document for more detail for each of the bullet points above [1].
Pros and Cons from a Library Perspective
Pamela Samuelson, an intellectual property expert, says, “In the short run, the Google Book Search
settlement will unquestionably bring about greater access to books collected by major research libraries
over the years. But it is very worrisome that this agreement, which was negotiated in secret by Google and
a few lawyers working for the Authors Guild and AAP (who will, by the way, get up to $45.5 million in
fees for their work on the settlement—more than all of the authors combined!), will create two
complementary monopolies [Google and the BRR] with exclusive rights over a research corpus of this
magnitude. Monopolies are prone to engage in many abuses” [4].
Also, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s attorney Cindy Cohn writes on the Deep Links Blog
(https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/google-book-privacy-policy-good-start-more-needed) that the
policy “still falls well short of the privacy protections that readers need, there is no guarantee that the
privacy policy will be permanent and readily enforceable by readers” [5].
Steven Bell, associate university librarian at Temple University, thinks Google is trying to answer
complaints through an updated agreement it recently made with the University of Michigan. Bell says, “I
don't think this new agreement with the University of Michigan is going to totally mitigate the concerns of
the library community about Google's monopoly ownership of these millions of digitized books. There is
still going to be a subscription cost to access the collection and there’s no way of knowing how it’s going to
be priced or controlled and that’s an ongoing cause for concern.” At the same time, Bell thinks that “since I
find that Google Books can be tremendously helpful for my own research and for assisting library users, I
believe it is preferable to have the materials than not having them despite some of the complications we are
working through.” He added that he remains “optimistic that this can be a good thing for the preservation
and accessibility of these collections” [6].
No matter what form the final Google settlement takes, it will undoubtedly have a considerable impact on
all types of libraries in terms of book usage and electronic access [7, 8].
Significance for Health Sciences Libraries
Lucretia McClure, AHIP, FMLA, MLA’s Copyright Referent and Special Assistant to Harvard’s Countway
Library Director, notes:
“The prospect of having thousands of the world’s best books available online for all to read and use is a stunning idea.
But there are real concerns. Health sciences libraries make their books available to all their faculty, students,
researchers, and health professionals and not just those who can pay. Students, in particular, will be harmed if access
is dependent upon payment. How can a library give up purchasing books when Google controls the access to these
books and also the right to establish payment? It is not in the best interest of the medical community to allow one
company to hold a monopoly on an enormous digital library that is in a sense a monopoly on access to the content of
so much of the medical information and literature.
“Both as health sciences librarians and as citizens, we need to study and understand the impact this Google settlement
could have on our collections and our ability as librarians to provide the best information and literature to our users.” ”
I found a tendency to lose focus in a web search, because of the presence of so many links to other pages, which didn’t
happen when using the subscription databases.
Nexis Search
With several relevant web-searched results, I turned to Nexis. I began with a modification of my web search terms, but
debated how far to limit the dates; I preferred the past six months, but had learned that there would likely be no
discussion of implications for libraries after the denial. I opted to search the past year. Although the settlement was
announced October 28, 2008, meaning articles on my topic might have been earlier than a one-year limit, I wouldn’t have
considered those to be “recent.”
You searched for: ((google pre/2 books or googlebooks) and settlement and libraries) AND (INDEX-CODE((GOOGLE
INC))) AND NOT (length<500) and DATE(>=2010-11-03)
Because many of my web-search results were university and ALA websites rather than the news databases used by Nexis,
finding discussion of the implications was more direct there. This Nexis search produced very different results than the
web search, and initially was much less precise (aka., lower precision). However, the articles were definitely much more
recent. I wasn’t satisfied, so modified my search.
New search:
Added <implication>, and changed keyword “libraries” to subject: libraries.
I had only one result, related to the HathiTrust suit, not the Google Books suit.
I modified the search, removing “implication” and adding “AND NOT hathitrust,” and received 35 results. As before, they
were news related, so I decided to explore changing my sources. After some exploration, and trying to confirm how to
include a subject term, I discovered that while the default search for adding index terms is “company”, there are many
other options – for searching different types of index terms in different ways. Apparently, although the information at
the bottom of many article hints differently, “libraries” is NOT a subject. “Library science” is, though. After MORE
exploration I discovered that “libraries” is considered an industry by L/N!
Edited search:
(added “Legal” source.) You searched for: ((google pre/2 books or googlebooks) and settlement and not hathitrust)
AND (INDEX-CODE((GOOGLE INC) AND (LIBRARIES))) AND NOT (length<500) and DATE(>=2010-11-03)
Even with this, the newest article found was in August.
I removed the keywords related to google, and removed News and Company as a source:
Error – The document section you named is invalid.
Try again. Removed “settlement. Only keyword: “And not hathitrust.”
Error – The document section you named is invalid.
I broke Nexis: no matter what I tried, I kept getting that same error, which made no sense. I finally figured out that the
system would not allow me to search only for “legal” sources. Once I unchecked that option and re-checked “News,” I
had results again.
You searched for: (librar! and (google pre/2 books or googlebooks)) AND NOT (length<500) and DATE(>=2010-11-03)
With that single change, I now had 371 results, but many were non-relevant as before.
I added the “AND NOT hathitrust” limiter again, and received 339 results.
You searched for: (librar! and (google pre/2 books or googlebooks) and not hathitrust) AND NOT (length<500) and
DATE(>=2010-11-03)
I didn’t like the results, so decided to try one of the Guided Search Forms. I chose the News option, and created this
search: In the Guided Search Form, I did notice that in the column to select industries, “libraries” was not listed at all, and
I was not allowed to exclude articles shorter than 500 words.
You searched for: ((HLEAD(librar!) And HLEAD( (google pre/1 books) or googlebooks) and not (hathitrust))) and
DATE(>=2010-11-03)
This time, I had 89 results.
But as before, none of the first fifty reported on the implications for libraries. When I added the search term “implicat!”
to the strategy, I received a single result, which discussed the implications to copyright law, not to libraries.
I gave up on the Guided Search Form, and began again with the Power Search, with this search:
You searched for: (google pre/1 books and settlement and not hathitrust) AND (INDEX-CODE((LIBRARIANS OR
LIBRARIES))) AND NOT (length<500) and DATE(>=2010-11-03)
I received 32 results. None were as useful as the information I found via a web search, but some did discuss this topic. A
selection is included at the end of this summary.
My observation, after researching this topic in Nexis and with a web search, is that for searches like this, Nexis, and in fact
subscription databases, may not be the best resource. Since they don’t include websites, and this discussion is happening
among universities and libraries, this topic is not well-covered in Nexis.
References:
Columbia Copyright Advisory Office, 2011. Google Books Settlement. Retrieved from
http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/special-topics/google-settlement/
Articles found in Nexis
Out of the Jungle
February 25, 2011 Friday 2:48 PM EST
Fascinating Essay on the Future, History and Business, of Books
BYLINE: Betsy McKenzie
LENGTH: 1646 words
Feb. 25, 2011 (Out of the Jungle delivered by Newstex) -I will read (or listen) to anything by Paul Duguid. I stumbled on an excellent review essay by him the the Times (of
London) Review of Books. Titled, "Do You Love Books? Jacques Bonnet does, (he can't stop buying them) -- but what's
the future for the book business," the essay reviews three books. Duguid reviews Merchants of Culture by John B.
Thompson, (I love the cover! It's a Tower of Babel made of books);
Publishing as a Vocation: studies of an old occupation in a technological era by Irving Horowitz; and The Phantoms on the
Bookshelves, by Jacques Bonnet (another interesting cover, with empty shelf space intriguingly "filled" with phantom
books).
You can see I'm a sucker for good book covers! It's a shame that academic libraries remove the book jackets. I really like
the plastic covers that allow public libraries to save and use the book jackets -- it makes the books much more attractive to
readers than the plain buckram (or now, paper) bindings!
A brief apologia for the review: From cards to chips, books come in many guises and the books under review help us to
appreciate the range. John B. Thompsons Merchants of Culture explores Anglo-American oetrade publishing, the canonical
book business that offers advances in the millions and can be disappointed with sales in the tens and even hundreds of
thousands. Irving Louis Horowitz's Publishing as a Vocation focuses on scholarly publishing, where citations can be as
important as sales, and a thousand in either column lies beyond most dreams. Jacques Bonnets The Phantoms on the
Bookshelves is the enjoyable confession of a oebibliomaniac, a man who (like the bookseller in Arnold Bennetts Riceyman
Steps) shelves books in his bathroom.
Together the three embrace the bundle of forms and genres on which the term book confers a spurious uniformity. They
help us understand that books (like many objects of love), though easy to idealize, can be complex, contradictory and
obdurate objects. But Duguid, being who he is, does not confine himself to merely reviewing the three books, though he
certainly does that. He takes the reader on a ride through the history and philosophy of books as he, himself understands it.
This is why it's always worth reading Mr. Duguid! He considers, as he hints in that quote above, how protean in form books
have always been, and continue to be. Far East users were among the latest adopters of the book form, who were the
among the earliest print-users, but gave up scrolls very late to move to the codex form that we now call books. But Duguid
points out that even now, different cultures print books in different directions: left to right, then top-down is hardly the
standard. Israeli and Arab printers go right to left, sentences and make what we consider the "back" of the book the front.
Traditional Chinese and Japanese readers read top down, sentences not across.
Duguid goes on to discuss the disagreements over where to place tables of contents, library binding and storage. He
mentions horizontal storage in stacks compared to the vertical stand-up books we usually see. He goes on with some
excellent comments about the flow of text and access, and how that affects current technology. Codices won the struggle
for dominance over scrolls largely, I think, because they are so good for random access. You can open a book (a codex) in
the middle of a chapter, to a pinpoint cite. With a scroll, on the other hand, you had to unroll it patiently to get to the point
you needed. An analogy might be CDs compared to tape recordings. Duguid, however, quotes Peter Stallybrass who
Directs the History of the Book, a center at the University of Pennsylvania, as pointing out that the unrolling of scrolls
really was perfectly suited to the structure of the novel, while the codex was better for accessing other types of writing.
Duguid then ties that observation to the current technological developments on GoogleBooks, which scroll, versus JStor
and ProQuest's Early English Books Onlinewhich turn pages more like a codex. He considers the uncertainty of the new ebook reading devices, such as Kindle, Nook, iPad and apps such as iBooks, GoodReader, Stanza about whether they are
scrolling or turning pages. We are in a transition stage. Most of the e-books being sold right now are novels, I think, so
maybe they need to scroll. But they have ambitions to enter the textbook market, so perhaps they need to retain a paging
and hypertext function.
I think my favorite part of the essay is where Duguid considers the folks behind GoogleBooks. Librarians have felt more
than a little defensive about this project. We have felt as though it were something we should have done ourselves, or been
more proactive about, I think, and thus, have been more hostile than maybe is rational. But we also have some very real
concerns about the project (see earlier blog posts by searching this blog for GoogleBooks or Google (NASDAQ:GOOG)
Books). But Duguid does not bring any of those concerns or emotions to the table, and he sees the Google folks as
romantics and perhaps a bit naive about books. I feel a good deal better about the project if I believe Mr. Duguid, I must
say. I. A. Richards called the book oea machine to think with, yet it is curiously resistant to technological standardization.
That point escapes many digitizing technologists, who are not perhaps the anti-book boors as sometimes portrayed. (Several
on the Google Books blog confess to loving books.) Rather they may be the last romantics, idealizing the book as a simple
carrier of information and so one that submits unproblematically to their computer algorithms. When I asked a senior
Google figure, who whispered advance notice of the firms scanning project some years ago, which books the firm would
choose, he insisted they would scan them all. About the same time, when a librarian at one of the first libraries to work with
Google offered one of their engineers access to their metadata, the engineer clearly had little idea what bibliographic
metadata was. Only a romantic, with faith in the simplicity of books compared to the sophistication of computers, would
take on such a task in such a way. (No doubt without such naivety, the task would never have been undertaken at all.) I am
a bit surprised in the review, to find that the book by Horowitz, a publisher of a small scholarly press, Transaction
Publishers, and a professor emeritus of sociology at Rutgers University, comes out with a manifesto of copyright
absolutism. Horowitz ...fears equally large publishers and libraries. He denounces the former as monopolists, but turns
more furiously on the latter. He is appalled at the idea of open access journals and fulminates that librarians have used the
fair use provision of copyright law as a battering ram for end running the major provisions protecting intellectual property.
He responds as a copyright absolutist. Property is property, he asserts and he has no time for arbitrary and fictive
distinctions between types of property. The appeal is not entirely original "Mark Twain put the same point to Rudyard
Kipling " but its success would entail a remarkable extension of authors and publishers power in the chain, an extension
that most true monopolists (and Google, if the courts accept its proposed copyright settlement) would relish, and certainly
one that needs robust justification.
Horowitz defends an interminable copyright by maintaining that scholarly publishing needs it and we need scholarly
publishing, for its high standards are essential to a democratic society. Thompson also considers publishings contribution to
the oepublic sphere, but for him it is, refreshingly, an afterthought. For Horowitz, it is in the opening salvo (though
rendered a little uncertain by later references to the oepublic square). Publishing is the core of democracy, he argues, and its
survival is under imminent threat. The implications of its collapse are oeprofound. We ignore them oeat our peril, and so
forth. Well, you will enjoy reading the essay and Duguid's review of the three books, despite how angry you may get and
Mr. Horowitz's sentiments. Fortunately (at least in my view), Duguid's opinion is that Horowitz's book fails to convince in
many ways because of failings in its editing, writing, and design. Which is interesting in an editor's book. But cheer up,
Duguid polishes off his essay with a wonderful bit of crystal ball gazing for the future of books and those who love them:
Though the form may change, the book chain itself is likely to continue to endure. For ultimately, it is a communication
chain, and it is hard to believe our garrulous species will cease trying to communicate. We cannot communicate without a
medium, and as new media develop, new authors will push at their edges to experiment in the sort of unplanned
possibilities that make the best books. You cannot have art, as William Morris argued, without resistance in the material.
Books have provided splendid resistance. But as long as there is a medium, there will always be resistance, and, with luck,
art. So while we codex-bound bibliophiles may look with gloom on the future, new cultural forms worthy of the name
oebook will develop in the digital world. And despite digital romantics, and though tweets and Facebook walls often do
resemble Hallmark aphorisms, the new will surely be worthy of a love that stretches well beyond the greetings card. ahhh
The image of the book cover is Merchants of Culture by John B. Thompson (from Amazon.com), the wonderful Tower of
Babel made of individual books. And the image of a person inexplicably visiting with a camel is Paul Duguid's faculty
photo from Berkeley's website http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~duguid/
Newstex ID: OTTJ-5345-101031108
LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
NOTES: The views expressed on blogs distributed by Newstex and its re-distributors ("Blogs on Demand®") are solely the
author's and not necessarily the views of Newstex or its re-distributors. Posts from such authors are provided "AS IS", with
no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided in Blogs on Demand® are for general
information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. No content on such Blogs on
Demand® is "read and approved" before it is posted. Accordingly, neither Newstex nor its re-distributors make any claims,
promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained therein or linked to
from such blogs, nor take responsibility for any aspect of such blog content. All content on Blogs on Demand® shall be
construed as author-based content and commentary. Accordingly, no warranties or other guarantees will be offered as to the
quality of the opinions, commentary or anything else offered on such Blogs on Demand®. Reader's comments reflect their
individual opinion and their publication within Blogs on Demand® shall not infer or connote an endorsement by Newstex
or its re-distributors of such reader's comments or views. Newstex and its re-distributors expressly reserve the right to
delete posts and comments at its and their sole discretion.
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2011 Newstex LLC
All Rights Reserved
Newstex Web Blogs
Copyright 2011 Out of the Jungle
Article:
The Chronicle of Higher Education
February 24, 2011 Thursday
It's Time for a National Digital-Library System; But it can't serve only elites
BYLINE: David H. Rothman
SECTION: THE CHRONICLE REVIEW; Opinion & Ideas
LENGTH: 3585 words
ABSTRACT
We need a national digital library that includes practical as well as scholarly material, and is easily accessible to everyone.
FULL TEXT
William F. Buckley Jr., my political opposite, once denounced the growing popularity of CD-ROM's in student research.
Shouldn't young people learn from real books?
I disagreed. Why not instead digitize a huge number of books and encourage the spread of book-friendly tablet computers
with color screens and multimedia capabilities? (Decades later, we have a version of that in the iPad.) Buckley loved my
proposal ("inspiring") and came out in the 1990s with two syndicated columns backing the vision. As a harpsichord-playing
Yalie famous for political and cultural conservatism and cherishing archaic words, Buckley was hardly a populist in most
respects. But he fervently agreed with me that a national digital library should be universal and offer popular content-both
books and multimedia. The library should serve not just the needs of academics, researchers, and lovers of high culture.
Today such questions-on the nature, size, and constituencies of a national digital-library system-are not nearly as abstract as
they seemed back then. I can remember skeptics questioning whether even advanced technology could let users search
through millions of books in a national digital-library system. Google, in effect, has settled that. Robert Darnton, an
eminent historian and Harvard University's library director, is not a technologist, but many, and probably the overwhelming
majority, of computer scientists in this area would agree with what he recently wrote in The New York Review of Books:
"Google, in digitizing large numbers of books and making many of them available online, has demonstrated its feasibility.
True, Google is a commercial operation, which puts corporate profit ahead of the public good, but it is also a success story
with a lesson to be learned: We can mobilize the technology and master the logistics that are necessary to digitize the
holdings of our research libraries on an enormous scale." Last October, Darnton convened a high-level meeting at Harvard
to discuss how such a library could be built to "make the cultural patrimony of this country freely available to all of its
citizens." In The New York Review and elsewhere, he has been widely making his case and is further pursuing the topic at
a workshop at Harvard on March 1.
President Obama did not use the word "library" in his State of the Union Address, but wittingly or not, he helped the cause
by citing digital textbooks as one justification for American business to expand high-speed broadband coverage. The topic
is finally gaining attention in the national news media as well. Peter Svensson, an Associated Press writer, recently delved
into the problems of e-books in public libraries today and complained that they are divided among thousands of libraries.
"Some branch out there might have a spare copy of The Black Swan," he wrote, "yet I'm stuck in the long line of the local
library. One national e-book library would be better." The New York Times ran a feature in January headlined "Playing
Catch-Up in a Digital Library Race," describing how other countries have already begun: The National Library of Norway
is digitizing its entire collection. The National Library of the Netherlands has started an ambitious digitizing project.
But will the United States actually construct a genuinely public and democratic national digital-library system to help us, in
the president's words, "out-innovate, out-educate, and outbuild the rest of the world?" While the Library of Congress has
digitized some of its collection, much remains to be decided and done. Further, Americans have yet to reach a consensus on
the characteristics of our own national digital library. Questions abound. Should the system exist mainly to promote
literature and culture in general? Or should the library care equally about the promulgation of scientific, technological,
mathematical, and medical knowledge-in fact, even business and vocational material, so that it can help millions of jobless
Americans and others upgrade their skills? What are the ways to justify the cost of building a national digital-library
system? Could the same tablet computers optimized for reading also be used for filing forms electronically and in other
ways reduce the costs of paperwork? How can we resolve legal issues surrounding the dread topic, copyright?
Tom Peters, a veteran public-library advocate, is coordinator of LibraryCity.org, a new online ad hoc group that will seek to
deal with these matters, especially whether the national digital library should be mainly for the intellectual elite or also
serve the rest of society in many directly practical ways. Peters is a former director of the Center for Library Initiatives of
the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, a consortium of the Big Ten universities plus the University of Chicago. I am
co-founder of LibraryCity, and like Peters, I hope that Darnton and others will agree with the idea of a genuine public
library rich in content and services for the nonelite as well as the elite. Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society is
sponsoring the March workshop to kick off its research and planning initiative for a "Digital Public Library of America."
With funds from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the project will bring together a diverse group of stakeholders to define
the scope, architecture, costs, and administration of such a library. LibraryCity's intent is to augment the Harvard effort,
rather than replace it, by offering a grass-roots perspective in depth. I appreciate Havard's invitation to include our views,
and I will be attending the meeting.
What are the current differences between our perspective and Darnton's? First, let me emphasize that he has not specifically
said that the library should be limited to the elite, or that it should encompass just books and culturally related content and
omit services such as reference. He does see the national digital library as "the digital equivalent of the Library of Congress,
but instead of being confined to Capitol Hill, it would exist everywhere, bringing millions of books and other digitized
material within clicking distance of public libraries, high schools, junior colleges, universities, retirement communities, and
any person with access to the Internet." Darnton's heart is in the right place. The problem is in some major details. For
example, when Darnton mentions America's "cultural patrimony," whose "patrimony" are we talking about in a
multicultural, multiethnic America? Since The New York Review published his views last fall, Darnton has commendably
agreed that "heritage" would be a more suitable term. But as priceless as our "heritage" is, shouldn't the library also be a
repository for the collected wisdom and recollections of the great unwashed of modern America? Even Darnton's reference
to creating a "Republic of Letters," drawing the term from the philosophes in the 17th and 18th centuries, smacks a bit of
intellectual snobbery, however accidental. And for the most part, his writings play up topics like collection management
and preservation, while ignoring, for instance, reference services, user communities, and grass-roots content like oral
histories. And what about issues such as integration of the national digital-library system with local schools and libraries,
and providing related training for teachers and librarians as part of their education and subsequent professional
development? Will the library be governed democratically, and will it be responsive to the public while courting
philanthropic funds? Comprehensiveness, please!
"It's like a politician making a campaign promise," Peters remarked to me recently. "You can have an 'and other items' to
cover yourself, but Professor Darnton's real priorities are clear-the humanities. This is a wonderful start. It just isn't a full
library."
Among other things, a well-stocked online national public-library system would help make American students more
competitive with their counterparts in other countries. It could also help correct the many deficiencies of library e-books
today, as documented by the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies, which has wisely suggested a national buying pool
to keep costs down and help libraries control their own destinies, rather than just tagging along behind vendors. A common
procurement system of one kind or another would be a natural component of a national digital-library system. For now,
public libraries offer just a tiny fraction of the more than 800,000 e-books available through Amazon's Kindle store-itself a
far from complete assortment-while millions of elementary- and secondary-school students are using obsolete textbooks.
Frustratingly, however, as is so often the case, Washington lags, despite Obama's reference to e-textbooks. Years ago, Al
Gore vaguely talked about digitizing books at the Library of Congress for schoolchildren, but the reality today is a long
way from the old rhetoric. In a 2010 speech, Obama, in fact, denounced iPad-style machines as evil distractions, without
fully acknowledging their potential as transmitters of knowledge and learning devices, even if they aren't currently being
built, priced, and marketed for the masses. Yes, he digitally autographed a student's iPad later in the year with Adobe Ideas
software. But my attempts to open dialogue with the White House on a national digital-library system have failed to draw a
response. That is why I am extremely grateful to Darnton and the Berkman Center for bringing this topic closer to the
national agenda.
While at the Harvard workshop, I'll share my own vision. I see going beyond simply digitizing what is in our libraries to
create a broader system-broader in content, metadata, accessibility, services, and communities to be served. Here are at
least some of the traits I think the national system needs:
A wide varietyof books and other items, including the literacy-building kind. The library system should serve not only
academics and other researchers but also the country at large, with the promotion of literacy and knowledge of all kindsincluding, dare I say, the sciences and useful arts.
In fact, the system should offer everything such as textbooks, carefully vetted scholarly papers, user-contributed
photographs, local oral histories, and multimedia job-training materials, as well as other directly practical content. We
mustn't neglect digital textbooks, multimedia, and other how-to content for students, small-business people, factory
workers, and others. Those are the kinds of materials that can help our country create the wealth and economic growth we
keep hearing so much about. Libraries are notable for aiding Americans to realize ambitions that can lead to gainful or
more-gainful employment; digital-library collections should reflect that interest in self-improvement and other lifechangers.
Speaking hypothetically, Peters recently e-mailed me that he wants the digital-library system to serve "a teenage boy in
Kamrar, Iowa, who yearns to learn much more than is offered by his local high-school curriculum, or the person with
impaired vision in Marathon, Texas, who wants to attend online programs about classic westerns and discuss them with
others, or the Latina single mother in Bellflower, California, who needs a national digital public library to improve the
quality of life for herself and her children." Simply put, let the content be both formal and informal, dynamic and static,
popular and academic, cultural and directly practical (culture in the end can be extremely practical, beyond its intrinsic
value-if nothing else, in business activities such as marketing and Web design).
In the content area, I certainly see a major role for Darnton himself, given his world-class credentials as a cultural historian,
even if he is not a trained-and-seasoned-in-the-trenches librarian by background. Top scholars like him could help us create
stellar collections in their areas of expertise: We need their participation. But American citizens need to be treated as more
than just passive consumers of content chosen or developed by experts.
Accessibility, mixed with realism. Not every library item can go online tomorrow with patrons charged no fees for access.
Still, we can at least work toward that goal in a reasonable way. A compromise might be for best sellers and other popular
offerings not to appear in the national digital-library system for a year or more after publication (at least not unless local
and state systems pay extra to shorten or eliminate their patrons' waiting time for desired e-titles, or unless those systems
drastically reduce the actual loan durations on the most-sought items and offer links to stores and publishers to encourage
borrowers to buy library-offered books and other content).
As a library user, I hate time windows and other access restrictions. But a realistic approach would preserve opportunities
for bookstores and commercial rental services and help protect publishers' income, a must no matter what the library
system's business model, if the system is to be affordable in the near future and include copyrighted material from major
sources. For their part, both librarians and content providers will need to show more flexibility than they have so far. Today
libraries own paper books with which they can more or less do as they please, short of, for example, copying them in ways
that go beyond fair use. They may need to bend somewhat and accept some restrictions, as long as the public's right to
continual access is preserved.
But publishers will have to yield, too, by making more e-titles available to public libraries. Furthermore, publishers should
be less zealous in their use of digital-rights management, technologies that limit access to digital content. Ideally, they will
also spend less time lobbying for Draconian copyright laws, and more time working with libraries to create and promote
cost-effective strategies to help libraries and themselves survive, with more revenue for all and less temptation for cashstrapped students and others to pirate books. A well-stocked national digital-library system could make content more easily
available both legally and-for publishers-profitably.
If nothing else, many readers of e-books are buying more books than when they had to drive to bookstores or wait for
delivery by mail. A digital library would support a culture of reading, as libraries always have. Institutions participating in
the national digital-library system could also help by popularizing appropriate hardware for e-reading.
.
.
.
.
Usability,in the general technology-related sense,with material made available for many different kinds of
tablets, cellphones, and other machines, via technical standards that promote interoperability. The national
library system should steer clear of the tablet-creation business-let Apple and the others slug it out. But the
right technical standards will boost the market, creating more opportunities for the private side. So might
free tablets for some low-income people or tax breaks for others.
Ease of use for Americans with disabilities and others, especially for such purposes as job-training. Fewer
people with impaired vision would need government assistance, for example, if they had the ability to
change the size and style of the "type" or hear e-books read aloud. Ideally, different interfaces would be
available even for mainstream users-everything from complex options for academics to colorful, Netflixsimple interfaces for more casual users.
Tight integration of the digital collections with our library and school systems. Librarians and teachers
should receive proper professional preparation so that the national digital collections are truly part of
curricula. What's the point of educational content if teachers and students can't absorb it?
The ability of the public to contribute items ranging from informal neighborhood guides to videos of news
events (which are, after all, future history).
A democraticorganizational model. The name "Digital Public Library of America," used by Darnton and the Berkman
Center project, will ideally be reserved for just that-a genuine, tax-supported, public-library system, answerable to the
voters one way or another. Many librarians in cities and suburban and rural areas across America should run the library
system and choose items for it and also be able to build their own collections.
Such a distributed, democratic approach would address many needs that members of the elite, by themselves, cannot even
begin to anticipate (like the needs of the Latina single mother in Bellflower). That is not to say the library system should be
anti-elite or anti-wealthy or exist only on tax money. It could also benefit handsomely from links to items in private
collections and from donations by Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and other philanthropists. But I myself would prefer that the
actual digital-library system be genuinely public from the start, with accompanying democratic governance.
Interactivityand long-term trustworthiness. The library system should also provide for reliable backups in many
locations and on public servers, as well as contractor-owned ones. It should be interactive and preserve annotations, both
formal and informal, while providing for good data integrity (the accuracy and completeness of data). The system should
allow easy and permanent linking from social networks and other Web sites, too, so that it is truly blended with the Internet,
especially the parts so dear to young people. It should adhere to e-book standards, so that electronic text is readable
centuries from now.
Cost-justification. Alas, in this chilly fiscal climate, we can't neglect the financial details. Cost-justification will be
essential. The same tablet computers useful for reading text and consuming multimedia could also be used for filling out
electronic forms and many other purposes. Unlike today's iPads, those tablets could easily be propped up and work with
computer mice and plug-in keyboards to make them more useful for productive work. A focused national effort could build
demand enough to drive down costs through mass production.
This "information stimulus" for ordinary Americans, not just the members of the White House and congressional elites
already thrilled with their iPads, would indirectly divert resources from paperwork to knowledge, popularizing established
multiple-use precepts from information technology. We spend at least several hundred billion dollars a year just on medical
paperwork. Reduce those costs just a little-along with, say, the countless dollars that small businesses spend on
government-related matters like taxes-and we will indirectly pay for a good part of the library system. In fact library books
would be one way to entice more people to use tablets and save time and money spent filling out paper forms by hand.
Simply put, the multiple-use concept could address many needs, not just library-related ones.
Other business principles. The national digital public-library system could and should be businesslike in ways beyond
cost-justification. For example, rather than creating a giant tech-oriented bureaucracy, the system could use Google,
Amazon, SirsiDynix, Overdrive, and others as contractors, while expecting a good value for the taxpayers. (Disclosure: I'm
a small Google shareholder, though I was pushing for a well-stocked national digital library years before the company's
birth and am against the proposed Google Book Settlement over what content holders regard as copyright infringement.)
The system should fairly compensate publishers, writers, and others. It needn't pay for spontaneously created annotations.
But books and other formal, edited content are another matter. The library system might pay by the number of downloads,
although other models could be used as well, including perhaps flat fees for, say, certain kinds of scholarly or educational
materials.
Flexibility, especially for the future. The technical and administrative architecture should allow technological
experimentation by qualified members of the general public. Google wisely let Harvard researchers experiment with an
application that could measure the usage of phrases in books. Such flexibility is exactly what a national digital-library
system needs. But beware of farming out tasks if the national library system lacks adequate safeguards against "vendor
lock-in" (often made possible by software or hardware that works only with other products from Vender X) and
gratuitously exclusive contracts.
Ideally the White House and Congress will understand the stakes here and start building a national digital public-library
system with all of society's needs in mind. That will benefit higher education, since American colleges work mainly with
the products of American high schools, where the priorities can differ starkly from those of the academic and research
elites. We need to avoid the library equivalent of a 1981 proposal to let ketchup and pickle relish count as vegetables in
school-lunch programs. Granted, literary classics and other forms of high culture are essential: They are not mere
condiments. But neither are they the full diets that American library users-students, working mothers, octogenarians in need
of accurate medical information-deserve.
LOAD-DATE: February 28, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: David Plunkert for The Chronicle Review
It's Time for a National Digital-Library System 1
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2011 The Chronicle of Higher Education
All Rights Reserved
Article:
Slate Magazine
March 23, 2011 Wednesday
Google Block
BYLINE: Siva Vaidhyanathan
SECTION: JURISPRUDENCE
LENGTH: 1481 words
Google has been humbled.
For a company with the audacity to make "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible" its
mission statement, it takes a lot to take Google down a peg.
But yesterday federal Judge Denny Chin did just that. He ruled-after more than two years of study and debate-that the
elaborate new used-book store that Google had designed in collaboration with the most elite authors and publishers could
not stand. Or, at least, Chin ruled that the methods Google chose to build this massive digital bookstore, now called Google
Books, was improper.
Back in 2004 Google shocked the publishing world by announcing that it had been for some time secretly scanning books
from major university libraries. Some of these libraries were allowing Google to scan in books that were clearly still
covered by copyright. Google tried to convince everyone that this was all just fine under U.S. copyright law by asserting
that we readers would only get to experience "snippets" of the entire book that sat in Google's servers.
This, to Google, was an example of "fair use," a defense used against an accusation of copyright infringement that gives the
public a way to deploy portions (or sometimes all) of a copyrighted work for some publicly valuable use. Critics,
journalists, teachers, and scholars rely on fair use every day to quote from copyrighted sources. But what Google proposed
was wholesale and revolutionary: It would have turned the copyright system on its head and redefined fair use in ways that
were never intended.
Unconvinced and undeterred by this novel claim of fair use (Google was, after all, making entire copies of copyrighted
works for the sake of a commercial enterprise that would enhance its core revenue source-Web search), the American
Association of Publishers and the Author's Guild filed suit in the Southern District of New York.
After four years of arguments and discovery, the parties came to a settlement that was as brilliant in its design as it was
audacious in scope: Google would be immune to infringement claims for what it had already scanned from a broad class of
copyright holders. Google would pay $45 million in damages to copyright holders. And then Google would set up an online
bookstore that would split the revenues for sales of digital copies of the vast majority of books published in the 20th
century. Readers would be able to access millions of books they currently can't find or have trouble getting through
libraries. Authors and publishers would get at least some revenue for books that currently sit idle and unprinted, long
forgotten because the market for them was too small. At first glance, everybody would win.
There were some troubling aspects of this proposed settlement, however. Most clearly, Google was in a position to set the
price of these electronic books. And there was no feasible way another firm could compete in that market. There were no
guarantees that Google or the publishers would protect user privacy when using the Google Books site. International
authors, who don't work under a copyright regime that respects fair use anyway, were deeply troubled by having Google
copy and sell their works without negotiating specific terms. The libraries that donated millions of dollars of content to
Google so it could go ahead and make big bucks were not insulated from liability under the settlement, to which they were
never parties in the first place. And while the settlement appropriately insulated Google from suits over scans it had
already made, the settlement also insulated Google for scans it would make in the future, infringing the rights of authors
who could not be found.
That meant that these missing authors of "orphan works" could never properly defend their interests nor negotiate the rights
to their work.
But Google answered this challenge the way it always does, by offering the missing parents of orphans the opportunity to
opt out of the system. This has long been Google's default position on all its controversial actions: There is no problem here
as long as we give people the chance to opt out. The default may work in Google's favor. But the empty "freedom" to opt
out (even if one has no idea one might want to) seems to carry the day for Google.
Not this time. Judge Chin considered the various objections to the settlement and decided that he need not resolve conflicts
about copyright, privacy, or even the obvious anti-trust issues. Chin just made a common-sense ruling that basically said a
class-action settlement is not the right instrument for making such major policy decisions. "First, the establishment of a
mechanism for exploiting unclaimed books is a matter more suited for Congress than this Court," Chin wrote.
This was ultimately a technical ruling based on rules of civil procedure that govern what class-action settlements should
and should not try to accomplish. As New York Law School professor James Grimmelman wrote on his blog: "Chin has set
up a dichotomy: Google's past conduct in scanning and searching was the subject of the lawsuit, but it is Google's future
conduct in selling whole books that would be authorized by the settlement. The case 'was not about' the same things the
settlement is."
Google has been trying to get away with moves like this for a long time. Back when Google's founders first dreamed up this
project, they could have recognized that copyright makes such endeavors hard and expensive, if not impossible. They could
have, and should have, sought a change in copyright from Congress.
Having failed that, Google's leaders could have reached the same settlement, while acknowledging that they can't get away
with asking long-lost authors to assert their rights that they might not even know they have through a system they might not
even know about. They could have, as Chin suggests at the end of the ruling, designed the system so that rights holders
could opt into it rather than have to opt out of it.
But that's not Google's style. It never has been. Google always scans first and asks questions later. Its leaders are convinced
of their own righteousness and prowess, confident that people will find their services so cool and indispensable as to be
quickly adopted as essential in their daily digital lives.
Even after the plans for this massive online bookstore were clear to everyone, exploding the illusion that Google was
actually working on some sort of benevolent "library" that would serve the public interest, Google co-founder Sergey Brin
in 2009 wrote in the New York Times anop-ed titled "A Library To Last Forever." In the article, Brin makes the specious
claim that Google Books exists to preserve hundreds of years of knowledge and cultural heritage. "Because books are such
an important part of the world's collective knowledge and cultural heritage, Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, first
proposed that we digitize all books a decade ago, when we were a fledgling startup," Brin wrote. At the time, it was viewed
as so ambitious and challenging a project that we were unable to attract anyone to work on it. But five years later, in 2004,
Google Books (then called Google Print) was born, allowing users to search hundreds of thousands of books. Today, they
number over 10 million and counting."
Librarians who are active in preservation scoffed at this notion, as Google's scanning quality is far below the industry
standard for preservation and its focus on speed and size trumped concerns over the quality of search results. Brin still
wanted to sell his proposed system as a public service rather than what it clearly was: a brilliant and useful bookstore that
could benefit readers, authors, publishers, and-above all-Google. That's not a bad thing, by any measure. But it's not the
same as serving the public. We conflate markets and publics at our peril.
The thing is, Google is usually right about the consequences of its audacity. Most of the time we all just celebrate what
Google lets us do, largely unaware or unconcerned about the soft power Google exerts over our information ecosystem.
After all, it's all so very cool. And it's all so very free-or so it always seems. That's one of the reasons there have been no
massive uprisings in the United States over Google Street View, unlike in Europe, where Google faces significant public
and legal challenges over the service.
This decision to scuttle the Google Books settlement marks a turning point in Google's ambitions. Between being slapped
around by China in the past year and now getting its rather creative class-action settlement rejected, Google might finally
learn some humility.
Perhaps we can all now realize that Google is not some benevolent giver of life and knowledge, but just another company,
albeit a brilliant and profitable one. And maybe one day soon Google's leaders will acknowledge that fact as well.
LOAD-DATE: March 24, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2011 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC.
All Rights Reserved
Article:
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
March 25, 2011 Friday
METRO EDITION
Google case stalls U digital book plan
BYLINE: STEVE ALEXANDER; STAFF WRITER, STAR TRIBUNE (Mpls.-St. Paul)
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 1D
LENGTH: 581 words
HIGHLIGHT: A blocked settlement with the book industry is a setback for the University of Minnesota's plans to make
its books more available.
For the University of Minnesota, the dream of a universal electronic library has been derailed -- or at least delayed -- by a
federal judge's rejection of a settlement between Internet search leader Google and the book industry.
For a year, the U's library has been shipping its books to Google to be digitized and become part of a huge database of
computerized library books that would be widely available.
The U planned to ship 1 million books, with the understanding that most of the digital copies would remain largely out of
the public view until the Google settlement was approved.
But on Tuesday, a federal judge rejected the $125 million settlement, which would have put online millions of volumes
from libraries around the country. The judge cited antitrust concerns over Google's clout in the publishing industry and the
need for involvement from Congress, while at the same time acknowledging the potential benefit of a vast computerized
library.
What happened? Google's 2004 plan to digitize 15 million books from the world's major libraries ran afoul of U.S.
The judge's ruling leaves in limbo many of the digital copies Google has made of about 15 million library books.
Google's managing counsel, Hilary Ware, called the decision disappointing and said the company was considering its
options.
"Like many others, we believe this agreement has the potential to open up access to millions of books that are currently
hard to find in the U.S. today," Ware said in a statement.
That was also the belief of the University of Minnesota, other state universities and the University of Chicago that have
been cooperating with Google to create a vast digital archive of the books Google is scanning. But now it's unclear what
will happen to the majority of the digitized University of Minnesota books, said Wendy Lougee, the university's librarian.
"I was disappointed the Google settlement didn't come to fruition," Lougee said. "There was a lot of public interest served.
And, while I appreciate concerns about Google and its potential hold on the book market, the agreement certainly left the
door open for others to do what Google has done."
At issue are 70 percent of all books and magazines that have ever been published in the U.S. Those volumes are scarce
because they're
About 700,000 books the University of Minnesota is offering to let Google digitize fall into that category, Lougee said.
Under the Google settlement, such scarce books and magazines would have been readable on computer screens at public
libraries across the nation by tapping into a Google database, she said.
But U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin in New York said the creation of a universal library would "simply go too far," and he
was troubled by the differences between Google's views and those of everyone affected by the settlement. Chin noted it
would have given Google exclusive access to millions of orphan works -- the name given to
Still, he left the door open for an eventual deal, noting that many objectors would drop their complaints if Mountain View,
Calif.-based Google set it up so book rights owners could choose to join the library rather than being required to quit it if
they wanted out.
With the settlement blocked, scarce
Readers also can see small snippets of digitized,
"That's still valuable," Lougee said. "It's useful just to know if the information you want is in a certain book or if it can't be
found anywhere."
The New York Times contributed to this report. Steve Alexander - 612-673-4553
LOAD-DATE: March 25, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2011 Star Tribune
All Rights Reserved
Article:
Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)
March 25, 2011 Friday
Digital book scanning should lead to online public library
BYLINE: Robert Darnton
LENGTH: 859 words
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. ? On Tuesday, Denny Chin, a federal judge in Manhattan, rejected the settlement between Google,
which aims to digitize every book ever published, and a group of authors and publishers who had sued the company for
copyright infringement. This decision is a victory for the public good, preventing one company from monopolizing access
to our common cultural heritage.
Nonetheless, we should not abandon Google's dream of making all the books in the world available to everyone. Instead,
we should build a digital public library, which would provide these digital copies free of charge to readers. Yes, many
problems ? legal, financial, technological, political ? stand in the way. All can be solved. Let's consider the legal questions
raised by the rejected settlement. Beginning in 2005, Google's book project made the contents of millions of titles
searchable online, leading the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers to claim that the snippets made
available to readers violated their copyrights. Google could have defended its actions as fair use, but the company chose
instead to negotiate a deal. The result was an extremely long and complicated document known as the Amended Settlement
Agreement that simply divided up the pie. Google would sell access to its digitized database, and it would share the profits
with the plaintiffs, who would now become its partners. The company would take 37 percent; the authors would get 63
percent.
That solution amounted to changing copyright by means of a private lawsuit, and it gave Google legal protection that would
be denied to its competitors. This was what Chin found most objectionable. In court hearings in February 2010, several
people argued that the Authors Guild, which has 8,000 members, did not represent them or the many writers who had
published books during the last decades. Some said they preferred to make their works available under different conditions;
some even wanted to make their work available free of charge. Yet the settlement set terms for all authors, unless they
specifically notified Google that they were opting out. In other words, the settlement didn't do what settlements are
supposed to do, like correct an alleged infringement of copyright, or provide damages for past incidents; instead it seemed
to determine the way the digital world of books would evolve in the future. Chin addressed that issue by concentrating on
the question of orphan books ? that is, copyrighted books whose rightsholders have not been identified. The settlement
gives Google the exclusive right to digitize and sell access to those books without being subject to suits for infringement of
copyright. According to Chin, that provision would give Google "a de facto monopoly over unclaimed works," raising
serious antitrust concerns. Chin invited Google and the litigants to rewrite the settlement yet again, perhaps by changing its
opt-out to opt-in provisions. But Google might well refuse to change its basic commercial strategy. That's why what we
really need is a noncommercial option: a digital public library. A coalition of foundations could come up with the money
(estimates of digitizing one page vary enormously, from 10 cents to $10 or more), and a coalition of research libraries could
supply the books. The library would respect copyright, of course, and it probably would exclude works that are now in print
unless their authors wanted to make them available. It would include orphan books, assuming that Congress passed
legislation to free them for non-commercial use in a genuinely public library. To dismiss this as quixotic would be to ignore
digital projects that have proven their value and practicability throughout the last 20 years. All major research libraries have
digitized parts of their collections. Large-scale enterprises like the Knowledge Commons and the Internet Archive have
themselves digitized several million books. A number of countries are also determined to out-Google Google by scanning
the entire contents of their national libraries. France is spending 750 million euros to digitize its cultural treasures; the
National Library of the Netherlands is trying to digitize every Dutch book and periodical published since 1470; Australia,
Finland and Norway are undertaking their own efforts. Perhaps Google itself could be enlisted to the cause of the digital
public library. It has scanned about 15 million books; two million of that total are in the public domain and could be turned
over to the library as the foundation of its collection. The company would lose nothing by this generosity, and might win
admiration for its good deed. Through technological wizardry and sheer audacity, Google has shown how we can transform
the intellectual riches of our libraries, books lying inert and underused on shelves. But only a digital public library will
provide readers with what they require to face the challenges of the 21st century ? a vast collection of resources that can be
tapped, free of charge, by anyone, anywhere, at any time. Robert Darnton is a professor and the director of the Harvard
University Library.
LOAD-DATE: March 26, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2011 The Deseret News Publishing Co.