No, there are some real differences. Karen Coyle, in her new blog Coyle's InFormation, compares the two Google library project contracts in her post, The dotted line.
The UC contract is newer and reflects experience by both parties. Karen compares the two contracts on Quality Control, What the Libraries Get, and Using the Files. She also asks readers with contract law expertise to help interpret the language.
One part I found especially interesting is Karen's observation that a robots.txt file is called a "technological measure" in both contracts. Karen says that honoring robots.txt files is at best a gentleman's agreement. The files' instructions don't actually force users to abide by them. She notes that the UC contract uses stronger wording about creating technological protection measures for the files.
Jonathan Nil comments that this language could be an attempt to pave the way for a DMCA argument in court. Under the DMCA it is a criminal offense to circumvent "technological measures." 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 et seq.
update: see Peter's post on the Internet Archive lawsuit which could have clarified the robots.txt issue viz a viz DMCA. But no, the case has been settled with confidential terms.
I am attacking UMich Libraries for blocking access to Google Book Search PD books and ignoring the serious Fraktur OCR problem. Feel free to read (in English) at:
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/2609488/
Posted by: Dr. Klaus Graf | August 31, 2006 at 09:19 PM