Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Computing
  3. Legacy Archives

Revised Google Books Deal Draws Fire

Add as a preferred source on Google
Google_Books_logo
Image used with permission by copyright holder

Last November, Internet giant Google offered a new version of its Google Books settlement agreement, which (if approved) would enable the company to create an enormous digital library and bookstore—including copyrighted works for which Google has not secured permissions. The court set a January 28 deadline for parties to file objections the preliminary settlement, and critics have lined up to slam Google’s plans, with many claiming the deal could easily give Google a monopoly on digital versions of a vast number of books.

Under the original deal, Google would have had exclusive rights to the digital versions of a vast number of so-called “orphan” books, which are typically out-of-print books for whom the real rights holders are either unknown or have been found. A large number of these works are from foreign authors. However, members of the Open Book Alliance—originally formed to oppose Google’s plans—still object to the proposed settlement.

Recommended Videos

In a new filing to the court, Amazon.com warns that the settlement “continues to give Google exclusive rights likely to lead to a monopoly,” enabling Google to not only control pricing, selection, and the process of reading books, but also control who is permitted to act as a reseller and dictate resellers cuts on sales. The Internet Archive, which has opposed the Google Books deal since day one, continues to voice opposition, saying the revised deal does nothing to mitigate concerns over the original; instead, the revised deal offers “minor amendments that still allow [Google] to manipulate class procedures to seize rights that copyright law as secured to others.”

However, some critics of the original proposal have come out in favor of the amended deal, including the Canadian Publishers Council and the UK’s Society of Authors. Google maintains that the Google Books project would benefit the broader public by providing vastly improved access to millions of out-of-print books.

The judge in the case plans hold a hearing on the fairness of the revised settlement agreement on February 18.

Geoff Duncan
Former Contributor
Geoff Duncan writes, programs, edits, plays music, and delights in making software misbehave. He's probably the only member…
AI is finding Apple security flaws faster than Apple can sort through them
Apple has limited how many bug reports researchers can keep open as AI tools produce both genuine Mac vulnerabilities and a flood of questionable submissions
Lighting, Architecture, Building

Apple has capped the number of security reports researchers can keep open at once after AI bug hunting put its review process under pressure, according to the Financial Times.

Some submissions describe hallucinated or purely theoretical risks. Others uncover vulnerabilities serious enough to require patches. Bynario told the FT that it found more than 50 possible macOS flaws in three weeks, including a privilege-escalation chain that could give an attacker full control of a Mac.

Read more
Anthropic is paying $1.5 billion over pirated books, but it can still legally cut up purchased ones
The settlement addressed unauthorized ebook downloads, not the destructive scanning of lawfully bought physical copies, a distinction now alarming booksellers
Book, Publication, Indoors

A federal judge has approved Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement over nearly half a million pirated books. The same litigation also protected a more physical method of feeding its AI systems. Anthropic bought print books, removed their bindings, scanned every page and destroyed the originals.

The legal divide came down to acquisition. The settlement covers books downloaded from LibGen and PiLiMi, while the court treated Anthropic’s one-for-one conversion of purchased books into private digital files as fair use. Training AI models on lawfully acquired material was also considered transformative.

Read more
Google Earth’s AI misadventure lasted only a day. It was a tale of dangerous ignorance.
Nuclear reactors, tanks, and historical destruction on a life-like satellite map? Yeah, that's bad.
Nano Banana AI image generator representation.

Technology behemoths are clearly not reading the room, or they are just moving faster than they should when it comes to AI deployment. Google has already stuffed its Gemini AI in every corner of its software stack, from Android to daily productivity tools like Gmail that are used by hundreds of millions of users every day. AI is everywhere. Not all of it is bad, mind you. But in a few places, it just feels forced.

In its latest AI-fication experiment, the company targeted Google Earth. The idea was to let the audience use its Nano Banana 2 AI image generator and make images that can be placed on the map view. On paper, it's a cool idea. What would the Colosseum of Rome look like in your urban neighborhood? Yeah, fun stuff like that.

Read more