Category Archives: Section 4.1(a)(iv)(6)

S 04.1.1.4.6

4 responses to “S 04.1.1.4.6”

  1. Deven Desai says:

    This clause reveals that the true goal is to divide up the world and charge as much as possible at each level. Public access to the information is not a real concern. That being said there may be arguments as why one should take a licensing approach. Those argument need to made clearly and prove that this model is the best one.

    For example, one could have the snipets search for many books or one could allow a user to see pages with specific search terms plus or minus one page on either side of the key page. If the user wanted the book, the user could then buy it, obtain it from a library, or someone may enter the market and offer it on demand (this could be the publisher or another party with rights). The problem is that the Settlement conflates the users searching for books and wanting the entire book and users who want only a portion of the book for research or other reasons. Charging for access to some of these uses is not necessarily beneficial. Put differently the case must be made that this model is the best way to meet the alleged objectives and that the other stakeholders who are not acknowledged are also served.

  2. Don’t forget the standard argument that price discrimination in intellectual property permits greater overall access than a single price would. (That it happens to shift consumer surplus to the producer is just a . . . side effect.)

    On the substance, I don’t know that the proper burden of proof lies with the proponents of the settlement on this issue. They had to show that it’s a good deal for copyright owners and the public compared with the status quo. That leaves it up to opponents to come forward and show that other models would be better.

  3. Deven Desai says:

    Standard yes. Proven? And what about Benklerish ideas of Wealth of Networks? To say it is better than status quo is a red herring. Status quo never contemplated the openness nor could it see the possibility Google is offering. The claim that is good, trust us, is indeed one they should support with models and more. Seems quite a gift to say well prove us wrong and puts the emphasis on the wrong party. And I think that your claim about pricing relies on competition. If there is not competition, then your standard claim is in trouble, correct?

  4. Actually, my claim about pricing is (even potentially) true only in the absence of competition. It depends on the existence of copyright’s exclusive rights. In a fully competitive environment, price discrimination is impossible because all prices fall to marginal cost.

    My point about the burden of proof is that if you think the settlement is sub-optimal, say what would be better.

(6) Additional categories, as agreed between Google and the Registry. Subdividing the market into additional categories may be one mechanism used to ensure broad accessibility of Books to end users.

Also posted in Article 04, Section 4.1, Section 4.1(a), Section 4.1(a)(iv), Settlement | Comments closed