Pleasantly surprised that a university library would take a public stand on such things, from the Harvard Crimson by way of an article on GBS settlement reactions in Library Journal.
University spokesman John D. Longbrake said that HUL’s [Harvard University Library] participation in the scanning of copyright materials was contingent on the outcome of the settlement between Google and the publishers.
Harvard might still take part in the project, Longbrake said, if the settlement between Google and publishers contains more “reasonable terms” for the University.
In a letter released to library staff, University Library Director Robert C. Darnton ’60 said that uncertainties in the settlement made it impossible for HUL to participate.
“As we understand it, the settlement contains too many potential limitations on access to and use of the books by members of the higher education community and by patrons of public libraries,” Darnton wrote.
Of course, Library Journal notes:
It was unclear at press time what Harvard’s non-participation means in practice, since it is not a party to the actual settlement or the lawsuit. Harvard, however, was one of Google’s original five partners in the library scan plan.
I wonder this too. No longer be a “fully participating library”? Although wait, Harvard probably doesn’t have the right to digital copies in the first place, so they’re not even a ‘fully participating library’ already, and lack the special rights for ‘fully participating library’ in the settlement, right? (Those original libraries haven’t been able to re-negotiate, have they?) No wonder they’re unhappy.
But, I guess, maybe I was too optimistic when I expressed pleasant surprise that a library would make such a public opinion known, the Crimson notes that this statement was just in a “a letter released to library staff.” (Nice actual journalism from the Crimson. Apparently someone at the Crimson cared enough to actually consult some sources in the library.)