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

Monday, 28th December 2009

Several Library Directors and Others Respond to Robert Darnton's Lastest Article, "Google and the Future of Books"

Robert Darnton, Director of the University Library at Harvard, author and frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books (NYRB) published an essay in the December 11, 2009 issue titled, "Google and the New Digital Future."

Over the weekend, the NYRB published, "Google & the Future of Books: An Exchange, a comments between several well-known and respected library directors (see below), other experts and Darnton.

The Response is Signed By:

+ Paul Courant, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, University of Michigan
+ Laine Farley, Executive Director, California Digital Library
+ Paula Kaufman, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
+ John Leslie King, Vice Provost for Academic Information, University of Michigan
+ Brian Schottlaender, University Librarian, University of California, San Diego Libraries
+ Carolyn Walters, Interim Dean of Libraries, Indiana University
+ Brad Wheeler, Chief Information Officer, Indiana University
+ john Wilkin, Executive Director of HathiTrust and Associate University Librarian, Library Information Technology, University of Michigan

It's a lengthy response that we STRONGLY SUGGEST reading from beginning to end.

That said, here are a few passages we felt most interesting.

In his recent article criticizing the Google settlement, Robert Darnton fails to acknowledge the significant role that libraries have had in the creation of Google Book Search as well as the concrete steps they are taking to address the sorts of concerns he raises. Libraries are using Google-digitized volumes to create the "truly public library" that he seeks, and these same libraries are taking responsibility for the preservation of Google-digitized volumes

Many of these institutions have also shaped a coordinated strategy for preserving and providing access to their growing digital collections. In 2008 a group of twenty-five research libraries including the institutions of the Big Ten and the University of Chicago, the University of California system, and the University of Virginia joined together to create HathiTrust (www.hathitrust.org) specifically for these purposes. With the number of volumes digitized by Google soaring into the millions and with the expansion of Internet Archive and other digitization efforts, these libraries sought to ensure the long-term accessibility of this content.

HathiTrust provides a suite of services to scholars and others, including full-text and bibliographic search across the entire repository. All of HathiTrust's services are separate from Google's. HathiTrust partners have undertaken ongoing copyright review of orphan works to open access to volumes that are, in fact, in the public domain.

Libraries are much further ahead in the game than Darnton would have readers believe. Although there are disappointments for Google partner libraries in the settlement agreement, libraries have worked to secure important privileges, including significant influence over the commercial pricing of Google's Book Search product.

The letter concludes with Harvard being invited to join the other libraries.

More After A Click

Darnton Responds:

On the Hathi Trust, Darnton says, "As my friends from Michigan know, I think the HathiTrust is a good thing and have applauded it from the beginning. It provides a remedy to one of the weaknesses in Google Book Search (GBS) by assuming responsibility for the preservation of the digital material. Although we had developed a preservation program at Harvard long before the creation of Hathi, we are eager to cooperate with it."

On what James Grimmelmann calls the most novel element of the conversation:

I {Robert Darnton] like Theodore Koditschek's [also published in the NYRB response] suggestion that Google be treated as a public utility subject to regulation in the public interest. If that seems unrealistic, one should consider a compromise solution, which would draw a line between the books digitized by Google that are strictly commercial and the books that are no longer in print, although some of them are still covered by copyright. Google would continue with its project to commercialize digital copies of books currently in print, sharing the proceeds with the rights holders. At the same time, it would continue to scan out-of-print books and to include them in a database that would constitute a separate, open-access repository. The rights holders of the in-copyright but out-of-print books in that database would be given the opportunity to choose to keep their books out of the open-access plan and, if they preferred, to include their books in Google's commercial operation.

This opt-out provision would be adapted from the similar provision of the ASA, which permits rights holders to remove their works from Google Book Search. By doing so, it would take advantage of the class-action character of the original lawsuit in order to promote a nonprofit project dedicated to the public good. The books in the open-access repository would be protected against litigation without recourse to legislation by Congress, and they would be merged with books in the public domain, forming a gigantic database—that is, a national digital library. (Of the ten million books that Google has digitized, roughly two million are in the public domain and six million are out of print but still protected by copyright.)

Source: NY Review of Books

See Also: James Grimmelmann from Shares A Few Thoughts About the Final Two Paragraphs Above in the The Laboratorium.

He Writes:

This proposal would effectively put unclaimed out-of-print books in the public domain, at least as to full-text access, with an opt-out option for copyright owners. It would deal with some of the exclusivity issues raised by the proposed settlement, but would heighten the class-action concerns and could be expected to draw substantial opposition from copyright owners.


Category:

Views: 493




blog comments powered by Disqus

« All ResourceBlog Articles

 

Read about the FreePint FamilyFreePint Family

A family of resources to help information workers be more effective, raise the value of information in their organisations and contribute to success. Read more »


FeedLatest Family Articles:


Click to view the article Quilting big data threads
Thursday, 24th May 2012

Recently I have found myself cooing over visualisation maps (and heat maps) of health and well being resources. The content rich data is overlayed with mapping technologies, and some interesting themes and patterns are emerging.


Click to view the article The fallacy of information overload
Wednesday, 23rd May 2012

A lot of the talk around social media in the last year has been around information overload. Social media has provided us with new and exciting ways to create content. But it has also meant learning new ways to manage and engage with social media tools. Are we teetering on the edge of an information overload precipice?


Click to view the article Information overload: fact, fantasy or filter failure?
Wednesday, 23rd May 2012

Information overload is a figment of your imagination. Or a failure of your filter. Or a symptom of your technological submissiveness. Depends on who you ask.


Click to view the article Newsdesk: tracking millions of pieces of information a day
Tuesday, 22nd May 2012

What if you had to sort through 3.5 million articles and social media posts a day and try to pull out the most relevant items for your organisation? What if you then had to cobble it all together into something readable for your top groups and executives in your organisation?


Click to view the article Alacra Compliance adds managerial oversight
Tuesday, 22nd May 2012

Alacra Compliance saves time by aggregating information from both free and fee-based sources and enabling users to conduct an accurate federated search across these sources (coined “simultaneous search” by Alacra).


All Family Articles »
Family Articles by Category »


Tell us what you're working on,
and we'll talk to you about how FreePint can help »


FreePint Family Testimonials

"Fabulous resource to learn of unique tools and insights. Very useful." Manager, Futures and Forecasting, Virginia, USA

More testimonials »






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 »