Well now you’ve done. You’ve forced me to actually dig further into this damn agreement. It’s 141 pages long without the attachments, and there’s no Kindle version — what were they thinking???

> first, it’s unclear whether consumers won or lost.
> it will depend on the price we have to pay to read.

I would argue that expanding access to millions of out of print books is a huge win for consumers. Especially when consumers will have access to these books through their local libraries. Suddenly rare books are no longer a special order that you have to wait months for.

> given that publishers have been whining loudly
> about the default $9.99 price that amazon has,
> because they think it’s too low!, i can’t imagine

Remember, these are out-of-print books. The $9.99 Kindle editions are front list. Publishers want to charge as much as possible for those books while they’re new and there’s still a demand.

Backlist is worth much less. And out-of-print backlist is theoretically worth the least. These are books they couldn’t justify keeping in print because there was no way to make money from them.

Also, when we talk about these books we need to talk about the rightsholders. That may not always be the publisher. In many cases rights revert to the author when the book goes out of print. In those cases the author would be setting the price.

Unfortunately I can’t give you specific pricing right now because that’s one area that is still under negotiation. However, the formula for pricing is included in the agreement (start at the bottom of page 48 for some fascinating reading).

For consumer purchases (which seems to be what you’re most interested in) there will be two pricing categories. A Specified Price and a Settlement Controlled Price.

The Specified Price is just what the name implies. The rightsholder names the price and that’s what Google will charge.

The Settlement Controlled Pricing will is an automated pricing structure that will be controlled by a Google created Pricing Algorithm. The goal of the algorithm will be to maximize value for the individual books, while providing the public with reasonable access. Basically the algorithm will dump books into various pricing bins based on some formula that only a certified Google genius could understand.

And this is the part where I can kind of, sort of, answer your question. Those pricing bins are: $1.99, $2.99, $3.99, $4.99, $5.99, $6.99, $7.99, $8.99, $9.99, $14.99, $19.99 and $29.99.

And the allocation to those pricing bins will be: 5% ($1.99), 10% ($2.99),
13% ($3.99), 13% ($4.99), 10% ($5.99), 8% ($6.99), 6% ($7.99), 5%
($8.99), 11% ($9.99), 8% ($14.99), 6% ($19.99) and 5% ($29.99)

So, from the looks of it 51% of the books will be available for consumer purchase for $5.99 or less. Or rather, 51% of the books that are priced under the Settlement Controlled Pricing method.

> you also left out entities under the “losers” column.
>
> first — you hinted at this, but it needs to be said,
> directly and loud — all other digitization projects
> just took a very heavy hit, a hit that might be fatal.

Possibly. Google definitely seems to have gained a big advantage here. Although they also seem to have forged a deal that many thought would be impossible. And that deal might be used as a framework for future efforts.

Right now there’s no telling what the future will bring.

> second, libraries that aren’t under the google project
> will find themselves paying huge amounts to “license”
> access to this book database… since many of these
> libraries will be public institutions — city libraries or
> those at publicly-funded schools and universities –
> this is essentially a way for google and the publishers
> to do a big pickpocket routine on the public treasury,
> meaning this is yet another way ordinary people lose…

Some institutions will undoubtedly have to pay a fee. That fee will be based on the size of the institution. But I don’t think it’s as bad as you make it out to be. The agreement also mentions a Public Access Service (see page 60).

> finally, _researchers_ will lose out because this database
> will be the sole province of google. there are _tons_ of
> innovations that might come out of the interactions of
> millions of books, and google just locked all of them up.
> and so we have yet another way that consumers will lose.

This I disagree with entirely. Researchers may benefit the most from the availability of these books. Further, Google is making an effort to provide access in a way that will allow researchers to perform computational research on large collections of books (limited at first, and understandably so given the computational overhead that could be involved in that sort of research).

Yes, there will be fees associated with such access. But I doubt the Google fees will be so much that they would have a negative impact on the budget of any serious researcher.

you got most of it right, but a few things wrong.

first, it’s unclear whether consumers won or lost.
it will depend on the price we have to pay to read.

given that publishers have been whining loudly
about the default $9.99 price that amazon has,
because they think it’s too low!, i can’t imagine
that they’re gonna price any access at the level
that most consumers _expect_ e-books to cost.

google might have given the publishers the tool
that they’ve been so desperate to find — one that
enables them to charge p-book prices for e-books.

you also left out entities under the “losers” column.

first — you hinted at this, but it needs to be said,
directly and loud — all other digitization projects
just took a very heavy hit, a hit that might be fatal.
google turned this into a game only the rich can play.
if google is the only one that can take advantage of
this settlement, it will have raised the bar of entry
to the point that no other project can ever clear it,
and consumers will be victims of a clear monopoly.

second, libraries that aren’t under the google project
will find themselves paying huge amounts to “license”
access to this book database… since many of these
libraries will be public institutions — city libraries or
those at publicly-funded schools and universities –
this is essentially a way for google and the publishers
to do a big pickpocket routine on the public treasury,
meaning this is yet another way ordinary people lose…

finally, _researchers_ will lose out because this database
will be the sole province of google. there are _tons_ of
innovations that might come out of the interactions of
millions of books, and google just locked all of them up.
and so we have yet another way that consumers will lose.

you said it best:
> this appears to be the rare settlement agreement
> that seemingly benefits all parties. In fact,
> the only entities that don’t seem to have fared
> so well are parties who weren’t involved in the suits.

the public wasn’t one of the parties at the negotiation table.

-bowerbird