Receive the weekly sampler of posts and "Resource of the Week".
Subscribe »

Enter your
email address:

My Account »


Bookmark and Share

Testimonial?
If you find ResourceShelf useful, please supply a testimonial »








Home > ResourceBlog > Article

« All ResourceBlog Articles

 

Bookmark and Share   \"Feed\"

Wednesday, 14th October 2009

Berkeley Law School Professor on Google Book Search and Libraries

In a post on Sunday, we mentioned the writing of Law Professor Pamela Samuelson from the UC Berkeley Law School (she is also has a Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information). At that point, she had written three columns about Google Book Search.

Today, she has written a new piece for The Huffington Post. The column is titled, Google Books Is Not a Library and in many was is a response to Sergey Brin's Op-Ed column in the New York Times last week.

Here are just a few selected passages. Make sure to read the complete column.

Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search. David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, has estimated that about twenty per cent of the books in the GBS corpus are orphans, but other estimates are higher. Even twenty per cent, however, equals millions of books.
[Snip]
If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents...Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books.
[Snip]
Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy. When you enter a library, you can search for books without anyone tracking your queries, you can read whatever is available for as long as you want without anyone monitoring your intellectual privacy, and you can check books out knowing that the records of what you've checked out will be protected from disclosure by state laws and by librarian ethics obligations.
[Snip]
That Google will serve ads alongside search results that yield GBS results is not surprising for the open Internet searches that users will do. But Google is now pressing university partners to accept ads even for the institutional subscriptions.

Read the Complete Column

Source: The Huffington Post

See Also: This post contains links to Professor Samuelson's other columns in The Huffington Post


Category:

Views: 480



blog comments powered by Disqus

« All ResourceBlog Articles

 

Read about the FreePint FamilyThe FreePint Family is a family of resources to help information workers be more effective, raise the value of information in their organisations and contribute to success.

'FreePint... provides most of my professional development because it won't come through work and [other resources] just don't cut it.'

Read about the FreePint Family »


Visit the FreePint ShopFreePint Shop: FreePint sells reports, resources and subscription products to support your information work and information-related decisions.

Latest: FreePint Volume: Critical Insight on Social Media 2012 (01 Feb 2012) | FUMSI Report: Folio on Conferences and Continuing Professional Development (26 Jan 2012) | FreePint Research Report: Information Governance Policies and Priorities (25 Jan 2012) | Docuticker Report: DocuTips on Health Literacy (19 Jan 2012) | VIP Magazine: 98 (18 Jan 2012)

Browse the FreePint Shop »


FUMSI ForumFUMSI Forum: Do you have a research question? Post it to the FUMSI Forum, where professionals share Q&A and useful tips on how to Find, Use, Manage and Share Information. It's free.

Latest FUMSI Forum postings: Most Shared Content on Finding Information (09 Feb 2012) | Times are changing - a FUMSI Editorial (09 Feb 2012) | [TIPPLE] eBook resources - Share (07 Feb 2012) | Most Shared Content on Sharing Information (01 Feb 2012) | Our own worst enemy? - a FUMSI Editorial (01 Feb 2012)

Visit the FUMSI Forum and post »


VIP LiveWireVIP LiveWire: Offers commentary on emerging news stories of interest to premium content users, vendors and industry insiders.

Latest VIP LiveWire postings: Compliance - it's not just financial (10 Feb 2012) | Social media and BRIC - new report (08 Feb 2012) | Reuters takes the social media pulse (08 Feb 2012) | How to deal with the tech-savvy customer? (08 Feb 2012) | More ways for employers to poke around (01 Feb 2012)

Visit the VIP LiveWire »






Subscribe

Subscribe to the ResourceShelf Newsletter and receive the weekly sampler of posts and Resource of the Week.

Find out more »

ResourceShelf sponsored by:

Article Categories

All Article Categories »

Archive

All Archives »