decision to file a legal brief before the court that articulates those concerns. On May 4, 2009, ARL, ALA, and ACRL filed comments with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York for the judge to consider in his ruling. Representing over 139,000 libraries and 350,000 librarians, the associations filed the brief as members of the plaintiff class because they are both authors and publishers of books. The associations asserted that, although the settlement has the potential to provide public access to millions of books, many of the features of the settlement, including the absence of competition for the new services, could compromise fundamental library values including equity of access to information, patron privacy, and intellectual freedom. The court can mitigate these possible negative effects by regulating the conduct of Google and the Book Rights Registry that the settlement establishes. The library associations are not asking the judge to reject the settlement. Instead, they are requesting the judge to carefully monitor the parties’ behavior once the settlement takes effect. Excerpts from the Library Associations’ Brief The Library Associations do not oppose approval of the Settlement. The Settlement has the potential to provide unprecedented public access to a digital library containing millions of books. Thus, the Settlement could advance the core mission of the Library Associations and their members: providing patrons with access to information in all forms, including books. However, the digital library enabled by the Settlement will be under the control of Google and the Book Rights Registry. Moreover, the cost of creating such a library and Google’s significant lead time advantage suggest that no other entity will create a competing digital library for the foreseeable future. The Settlement, therefore, will likely have a significant and lasting impact on libraries and the public, including authors and publishers. But in the absence of competition for the services enabled by the Settlement, this impact may RLI 264 4 The Case for Regulating Google and the Proposed Book Rights Registry ( C O N T I N U E D ) JUNE 2009 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A BIMONTHLY REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC Listen to Kenneth D. Crews, Director, Copyright Advisory Office, Columbia University Libraries, on the Google Book Settlement (4:07 MP3) http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/rli-264- google.mp3 Photo Credit: Sam Scott