There are real issues here. It’s not just some “priesthood vs. pirates” thing. It’s about the fact that Google does not answer to us and the libraries that are giving away the treasure have abrogated their responsibility to defend the very values that librarianship supports.
Maybe I have a different sense than Siva does of the relative strength and fragility of the values that Google Book Search puts in play. Siva worries that Google has put fair use law at risk. I’ve only skimmed the Perfect 10 opinion that Siva is writing about, so I don’t have a well-formed opinion on the case, but generally I don’t think of fair use as a fragile thing. Kelly v. ArribaSoft, the Ninth Circuit case that Judge Matz distinguished in Perfect 10, is something of a fair use outlier in my book, though I do think that it was rightly decided. Fair use will survive Perfect 10, whatever the Ninth Circuit decides. Whether the Internet survives is a different question; I think — hope — that it will, but time will tell.
What about librarians and librarianship and “the values that librarianship supports”? Recognize that these shouldn’t necessarily get lumped together. It’s certainly possible to defend “the values that librarianship supports” yet not be a librarian or an information professional, and it’s possible to defend those values and still think that Google Book Search is consistent with them. (After all, in the vast majority of information policy debates, I think that Siva and I are arguing on the same side.) I’m not a professional librarian but I’ve used academic libraries at several pretty good universities (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, as well as at Pitt), and I like to think that one big point of librarianship is putting information in the hands of patrons, so that patrons can do with it as they wish. Not only do I not see Google interfering with that, I see Google supporting that. People — patrons — will find information; in my view that’s an enduring truth, and Google Book Search won’t prevent that from happening, and librarians and Google Book Search are complements in that pursuit, not substitutes. Have academic librarians sold out by not building and controlling a “book search” facility with their own university resources? If their mission is largely to deliver the content, I don’t see it.
But there is the question of “accountability.” I don’t think that’s the right word, actually; I think that the better word is “transparency.” To me, accountability implies that if library users don’t like what librarians are doing, then users can arrange to change the world to prevent librarians and libraries from doing that, and I don’t see how that happens, except at a margin that we haven’t approached. Transparency means that we can see what librarians are doing, even if we can’t do anything about it. Siva’s right to argue that when searches begin, librarians and librarianship are unquestionably more transparent than Google Book Search.
But does transparency end there, and should it? I look at this issue through my robustness lens, and I have to suspect that library patrons aren’t so passive that they will, ordinarily, simply take search results and live with them as is. I don’t do that with librarians; I don’t expect people to do that with Google Book Search. Search and information retrieval is iterative, and the process isn’t just the search algorithm (human, or automated). Search processes involve the patron, too. To me, transparency is a product of that process, and it runs from beginning to end. It’s not a static quality of the searcher.
Could Google Book Search be more transparent — could the process of search be more transparent — than it is today? I threw in a “folksonomy” suggestion in my last Google post, but I didn’t really mean it; now I’ve changed my mind. Google Maps has a build-it yourself feature; in Pittsburgh, a blogospheric colleague of mine recently used that to put together something really cool. Clearly, if Google Book Search had a similar property, so that people could tag and share searches — build their own classifications, in other words — Google Book Search would be vastly more transparent than it is today.
That doesn’t solve some other problems that Siva points to — privacy and security of individual searches, for example — and it doesn’t answer the criticism that librarians at Michigan, Harvard, and Stanford have let us down with a bad deal. But does the proposal go part of the way to curing the problem of Google’s “secrecy”? I think it may.
I agree with the idea that users can use both libraries and Google to find information. That’s been my contention for awhile (see my earlier comments ^_^). They are both means to an end that can complement each other. Google and libraries are not mututally exclusive, when looking at the issues of classification and access. I think that the transparency mechanism that you mention would be helpful in alleviating problems relating to those issues.
There are other issues, directly relating to Google. As you mention, one of those is privacy. Another is the contract. Why can’t the University of Michigan share information in the public domain with the public? Why can’t Michigan use Interlibrary Loan with those documents like they can with other digitized documents? I view those as problems. I think allowing such lawful activities would also help alleviate some of the criticisms of Google’s project.
The mission of the library, though, is also not necessarily only to deliver the content (depending on the library). The mission may include things such as collection development, organization and preservation. Now, I don’t think the contract with Google necessarily precludes those aspects of the library mission, except in terms of what the library is allowed to do with access to the digital copies it receives from Google. As far as delivering the content, the question becomes, who are the patrons that the libraries can deliver the content to?
Some issues are related to how the existence of the project affects libraries. I have on good authority that some librarians appear to be under the impression that because Google is digitizing books, similar digitization by libraries would be redundant. I do not think this is the case for a variety of reasons related to the privacy, access, classification, and transparency issues that currently exist.
The other issue, of course, is the perception that Google is a substitute for a library. ^_^
Mike – For these new online book repositories – joining those that already contribute a significant amount of often freely available journal content – one leverage point (and potentially an important transformative one, in the Fair Use sense) – is merely to publish or embed enough useful information in the books and their descriptions to provide the ability for others to build new services layered upon them. With minimal agreed upon standards, users and businesses could build cross-repository linking services, citation management, alerting services, social searches, and more. It is not incumbent upon Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft to build or provide these services themselves; they just need to agree that feeding this kind of ecosystem is a Good Thing.
Pingback: copy this blog » Google and Library contract
Peter — I agree entirely. The question is this: If Google were to do this (and I’m assuming, right now, that Google has not), then would that take some of the edge of the criticism of the project that Siva articulates? Mike
Mike – Google largely has not, yet, although it is conceivable that they might. More importantly, it is conceivable that we will see support for these kind of service infrastructures more broadly in the future; the range of applications that could be constructed is very exciting, and is attracting attention from a diverse set of actors and organizations.
In partial response to re: privacy, I think the larger point is that it must be up to organizations representing discrete communities – e.g., digital libraries, the greater e-book industry, educational institutions, etc., to gather *amongst themselves* to discuss the particular needs that each would like to meet, and to obtain consensus, direction, and economic guidance — including e.g. grants, entrepreneurial self-funding, or VC support — on how they could be pursued. Some groups may opt for privacy-respecting applications, in which individuals might have the ability to control the release of descriptive personal attributes in trade for enhanced service provision. (Or, alternatively, choose to not release that information.) The marketplace and the social matrix in which organizations make choices for their institutional members could then determine the desirability of such offerings.
That’s one of our visions. We need to work to get there.
Pingback: madisonian.net » GoogleBooks