Publication:

Why the Google Books Settlement is Procompetitive

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2010

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Einer R. Elhauge, Why the Google Books Settlement is Procompetitive, 2 J. Legal Analysis 1 (2010).

Abstract

Although the Google Books Settlement has been criticized as anticompetitive, I conclude that this critique is mistaken. For out-of-copyright books, the settlement procompetitively expands output by clarifying which books are in the public domain and making them digitally available for free. For claimed in-copyright books, the settlement procompetitively expands output by clarifying who holds their rights, making them digitally searchable, allowing individual digital display and sales at competitive prices each rightsholder can set, and creating a new subscription product that provides digital access to a near-universal library at free or competitive rates. For unclaimed in-copyright books, the settlement procompetitively expands output by helping to identify rightsholders and making their books saleable at competitive rates when they cannot be found. The settlement does not raise rival barriers to offering any of these books, but to the contrary lowers them. The output expansion is particularly dramatic for commercially unavailable books, which by definition would otherwise have no new output.

Description

Research Data

Keywords

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles (OAP), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Related Stories