not be entirely positive. The Settlement could compromise fundamental library values such as equity of access to information, patron privacy, and intellectual freedom. In order to mitigate the possible negative effects the Settlement may have on libraries and the public at large, the Library Associations request that this Court vigorously exercise its jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement. Indeed, in its order approving the Settlement, the Court should make clear that it intends to oversee the Settlement closely. The Library Associations urge the Court to exercise this authority vigorously to ensure the broadest possible public benefit from the services the Settlement enables. In particular: • Any library or other possible institutional subscriber must have the ability to request this Court to review the pricing of an institutional subscription. The Court’s standard of review should be whether the price meets the economic objectives set forth in the Settlement, i.e., “(1) the realization of revenue at market rates for each Book and license on behalf of Rightsholders and (2) the realization of broad access to the Books by the public, including institutions of higher education.”1 • Any entity must have the ability to request this Court to review the Registry’s refusal to license copyrights to books on the same terms available to Google. • Any class member must have the ability to request this Court to review the procedures by which the Registry selects members of its board of directors, and to evaluate whether the Registry properly considers the interests of all class members in its decision-making. • Any user must have the ability to request this Court to direct Google to provide the user with a list of books excluded from any of its services for editorial or non-editorial reasons, and an explanation of why it was excluded. Google already must provide the Registry with a list of books excluded for editorial reasons.2 • Any researcher must have the ability to request this Court to review the reasonableness of a Research Corpus host site’s refusal to allow the researcher to conduct a research project at the host site. RLI 264 5 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