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.
I have mixed feelings about this as well. On one hand I like the idea of the books being available to the public because people like me, can have access to them. Yet, I must remind myself that Google is a BUSINESS in the business of making MONEY. And it always comes down to making money no matter what the situation is. Sad but true.
ReplyDeleteI guess we will have to wait and see how this will all play out. I think librarians and libraries in general should "sleep with one eye open" when handing over their collections. We should be vigilant in watching what happens. That I think is a given.
I share the same worry that many do, that Google will be able to control the access to the books, as well as the cost. One of my favorite library beliefs is that information should be accessible to all, without charge (other than basic copy charges). Otherwise, wouldn't it just be a bookstore or an online vendor? Having the material actually available to a wider audience is absolutely a good thing, but if it comes at cost for the user, does it belong in a library? I'm personally not sure about that.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is easy to blame/accuse Google of being a Monopoly, it is important to remember that they didn't become one overnight, or by luck. It's not as though they won the monopoly lottery or something.
I am actually very excited about this venture by Google! It will make a huge amount of information available to a wider audience--and it will be even more easily accessible since many out-of-print books held at libraries are in poor condition. Making the information available digitally is just better for the end user, in my opinion. It makes research easier--no more waiting around for interlibrary loaned materials and not even being sure that book is what the researcher needs since there may not be a good summary available. The Google "search inside the book" option is ingenius and, although Google is a money-making business, I still think this money-making venture is one that will help the greater good.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to comments made by Alan Inouye, Director of ALA's Office for Information Technology Policy, about the Google Book Settlement. http://wo.ala.org/gbs/
ReplyDeleteIf you listen you will hear him mention that school libraries are not included in the settlement, something that is ignored in the written synopsis.