From Google Book Search Settlement: A Publisher's Viewpoint interview at Stanford Fair Use & Copyright site
Tim Barton: I also think that Google should drop the "most favored nations" clause in the agreement.
Barbara Cohen:
I agree, if only because the MFN's meaning seems almost uniformly to be
misunderstood. I keep reading concerns expressed by people who
mistakenly read the MFN as broadly prohibiting the Book Rights Registry
from giving any firm other than Google a better deal in any respect
than Google has with respect to exploiting any of the books in the
database. But in fact the MFN is an extremely narrow clause and is
being misread. Only if, during the next 10 years, there is another
class action and settlement involving a "significant amount" of the
orphan works in the Google database could this clause be invoked. But,
narrow though the MFN is, I agree with Tim that Google should eliminate
it, if only to ease public concerns. The mere presence of this clause
has been read by many as showing Google's monopolistic desires and this
has cast a long shadow. It would be a shame if fears based on a
misunderstood clause came to overshadow the settlement's remarkable
potential to do good. If there are steps that Google and the other
parties can take now to eliminate these concerns and ensure the
settlement's approval, I hope that they do so.
Comments