This isn't a story that I've been following since its beginning, so my knowledge is pretty limited to what I've heard other people say and this article. I am kind of curious what other future librarians think... especially since many of us differ in our views of technology and the future of libraries.
I guess I really have mixed feelings about the whole thing. For those who (like me) haven't been following, Google has intentions of making digitized copies of copyrighted (rights holders unknown or unavailable), yet out-of-print books available to the public. They will be making money on it, though they did scan them all at their own cost. Some libraries and publishers have challenged the court settlement, worried that Google then becomes a monopoly and controls access and prices of these books. In the settlement that is being challenged, Google's profits are limited and their rights to the material aren't exclusive... authors will have the right to claim and withdraw their books if they so choose.
It's probably likely that Google would be a monopoly.. and obviously, to say that they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and not for money isn't probably entirely accurate. Google says that nothing prevents a potential rival from doing the same thing (though let's face it... not many "rivals" have the same means of getting this done). But I guess my thing is.. who else is going to do it? What happens to the knowledge if its only access remains in whatever library holds the book? As the article mentions, it would be nice if perhaps Google charged only what it cost them to make the material available. I just think that the overall result of having the material actually available to a wider audience may not necessarily be a bad thing.
