But the argument being trotted out is that having orphan works  
available through Google would HURT libraries, which is a somewhat  
different discussion.

The arguments I see for that (as applied to libraries other than the  
internet Archive) are:
1. Asset devaluation. Just as DeBeers would be hurt if Google started  
selling cheap diamonds, because their stock of diamonds would be  
devalued, libraries would find their collections devalued.
2. Competition. Patrons would have attractive alternatives to visiting  
libraries to access information locked onto paper.

But let's imagine that Internet Archive was shoehorned into the  
settlement. How would these arguments change? Asset devaluation would  
presumably be worse as the price was driven down, and Libraries (other  
than IA) would be faced with more competition, not less. On the other  
hand, presumably libraries would gain more options in indexing and  
thus improved access to their collections.

Eric
http://hellman.net/eric/

On May 20, 2009, at 3:47 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> On 5/20/09 11:19 AM, Eric Hellman wrote:
> > I don't see how bashing Google (which is NOT what the
> > library association briefs are doing, btw) for gaps in US
> > and international Copyright Law(orphan works, for example)
> > will end up helping libraries.
>
> i think the concern is that the settlement could give
> _only_ Google the right to scan orphaned works, and no
> one else. that certainly wouldn't help libraries.
>
> [log in to unmask]