In Conclusion

Google has become ubiquitous. It is a verb, a noun, a cliche. Google is loved, hated, adored and feared.

I am glad that I chose the Google Books project as my topic even though at the time it seemed like the ubiquity of Google might make the project cliche. How ever the settlement shakes out in its final form, it will have far-reaching implications on a global level for almost anyone in the publishing, academic, or library fields. Really anyone who comes into contact with the written word (that's a lot of people!) should be concerned about the outcome of Google Books.

The enormity of the project guarantees both complexities and nuances which have generated the controversy surrounding its launch. At the heart of the matter is both making sure that copyright holders are compensated adequately for their work and ensuring that Google does not create a monopoly on digitized works, ending competition, driving up fees and stifling the free exchange of ideas and scholarship. Being on the front lines of the information battlefield, librarians must be ever-vigilant.

A Few Additional Controversies & Corollary Issues

This blog has been a general overview of Google Books. Since the settlement is over 200 pages long plus appendices and attachments, my project has focused on the main issues and criticisms aimed at the recent settlement and has obviously been much abbreviated. But there are many other facets to this debate and I wanted to mention two before I close my research.

One such corollary issue is the fact that Microsoft is a silent partner to some of the litigation against Google. According to Steven Levy of Wired.com, the New York Law School is one of the litigants opposing the final court approval of the settlement. The major financial backer of the school is Microsoft, who after losing several anti-trust suits in the 1990's has been lobbying the government to rein in Google ever since. So what appears to be an Internet issues group taking Google to task is actually a major business competitor using the legal system to further their own agenda. It is for this very reason that each step of the settlement approval process must be very well researched and investigated, as the far-reaching affects could have implications not yet determined. For more information see Levy's article:
Levy, S. (March 31, 2009). Who's messing with the Google Book settlement? Hint: They're in Redmond Washington. Epicenter Blog. Wired. Retrieved July 5, 2009 from http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/03/whos-messing-wi/.

In a completely different direction is the concern over the quality of the scans of materials. While Google's primary goal is to digitize works to create easier access, many scholars are excited about the preservation aspects of the Google Books project. However, others such as R. G. Musto are concerned about the shoddy nature of some of the scanned items. As a historian who has specialized in reconstructing the destroyed works from the library of Naples, Musto fears that Google lack of quality control is yet another example in a long line of atrocities committed against the world's great works of literature and he fears that scholars growing up in an age of Google will be willing to settle for second-rate reproductions instead of the real thing. His arguments are limited in scope, but interesting and show the depth of interest from all quarters in the success and implementation of the Google Books project.
Musto, R.G. (June 12, 2009). Google Books mutilates the printed past. The Chronicle Review, 55(39), B4. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from Lexis Nexis.

ALA's Official Position

The ALA offers several very helpful tools for navigating the enormous Google Books settlement and the University of Michigan amendment. Jonathan Band wrote “A Guide for the Perplexed: Libraries and the Google Library Project Settlement,” which offers a succinct description of the settlement with minimal editorializing. Since the passage of the amendment with the University of Michigan, ALA is now offering “A Guide for the Perplexed Part II: The Amended Google-Michigan Agreement.” But these are merely guides to the documents. What is the official ALA stance?

Since the hue and cry seemed to be so great among librarians, publishers and authors, I assumed that ALA would be completely against Google Books and they did recently file a 22 page brief which may be read in its entirety online. However ALA clearly states they are not opposed to the settlement, but rather have concerns similar to mine, but more detailed and couched in better and more legal terms! From the brief: "The Library Associations do not oppose approval of the Settlement. The Settlement has the potential to provide unprecedented public access to a digital library containing millions of books. Thus, the Settlement could advance the core mission of the Library Associations and their members: providing patrons with access to information in all forms, including books." The brief then goes on to enumerate each of the grievances and concerns the association has with the settlement. The six headings are as follows:

II. The Settlement Creates An Essential Facility With Concentrated Control.
III. The Settlement Could Limit Access to the ISD.
IV. The Settlement Will Heighten Inequalities Among Libraries.
V. The Settlement Does Not Protect User Privacy.
VI. The Settlement Could Limit Intellectual Freedom.
VII. The Settlement Could Frustrate the Development of Innovative Services.

The brief outlines six areas of concern and requests court oversight and enforcement. Overall, the brief offers a clear assessment of the both the strengths and potential of Google Books and the possible pitfalls. "The Settlement could compromise fundamental library values such as equity of access to information, patron privacy, and intellectual freedom. In order to mitigate the possible negative effects the Settlement may have on libraries and the public at large, the Library Associations request that this Court vigorously exercise its jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement. Indeed, in its order approving the Settlement, the Court should make clear that it intends to oversee the Settlement closely."

For more information, see the ALA website.

For what it's worth, here's what I think. . .

So after all the articles, all the debate, all the impassioned appeals, what should be the "official" library stance on the Google Books project? There IS an "official" position at the ALA website that includes the new amended agreement with the University of Michigan, but I have purposely not read it yet. I want to formulate my own opinion first and then see where I meet with and/or diverge from "the company line." Frankly, it is hard not to be swayed by Robert Darnton's eloquent and articulate criticisms of the Google Books project, but, here too, I will try to formulate my own well-reasoned opinionsbased on the research I have conducted. In doing so, I think I probably am more in favor of the Google Books project than many in our field.

I think we need to be careful about Utopian fantasies of universal libraries and free access to the world's information when it comes in the form of a commercial enterprise. I don't buy into the thought that big business = bad business, but I also don't want to have illusions about a primary motivator of for-profit entities which is namely to make money. To paraphrase one of Darnton's queries, while Google's track record is good so far, what happens if present ownership changes or profitability wins out over accessibility? The success of Google Books rests on the benevolence of the Google conglomerate. To date, Google has been a responsible neighbor and good faith player, but there must exist a healthy distrust of a large entity when nothing less than a monopoly of the world's knowledge hangs in the balance. Admittedly Google did not set out to create a monopoly on all orphan works, items in the public domain or digitized library objects. By virtue of their success, they just have no legitimate competitors and they should not be punished because they are good at what they do. However, safeguards must be put into place to ensure that access is not overly restricted or controlled.

I also diverge slightly from Darnton in my thinking that free market principles have the potential to help keep Google in check and prevent them from charging exorbitant fees. If the rates become too high to access Google Books, people will forgo the instantaneous convenience and return to more conventional means of accessing the information – by this, I mean they may order it from Amazon or download an e-book through a library or any other of a myriad of ways that people access information today. Just because Google digitizes a work, does not mean that it ceases to exist in other formats or in other places. I also think that the legal wrangling and deal making will continue for a long time and I think information consumers will benefit.

Overall I think that as long as copyright holders are given fair compensation for their intellectual property and a method of arbitration on access fees is put into place, Google Books has the potential to be one the greatest forces for scholarship the world has ever seen. Combined with projects which get computer and Internet access to developing nations, Google Books could be a great leveler on the playing field of intellectual freedom and free exchange of ideas ushering in a new period of Enlightenment and scholarship. In my opinion, that's an idea libraries can get excited about.

In general, everyone agrees that the Google Books project has the potential to be a tool for great good. The world's citizenry stands to gain tremendously by having access to a searchable database of a universal canon of popular and scholarly literature and the opportunity for preservation is inestimable. Of course, the devil is in the details.

Expanded Annotated Bibliography or. . .some comments on literature in the field

I have relied heavily on several sources aside from the obvious Google Book Search pages. The Google Books debate is relevant to a whole raft of people: authors, publishers, librarians, scholars, researchers, archivists, copyright holders & estates, historians and bibliophiles and frankly, the general public, whether they know it or not. These articles are helpful in understanding both sides of the issue.

Darnton, R. (February 12, 2009). Google & the future of books. The New York Review of Books, 56(2), 9-11. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281.

One of the most eloquent parties to weigh in on the debate is cultural historian Robert Darnton of Harvard University. Not only is he quoted in most of the major articles on the subject, his own articulate treatise lends historical gravitas and perspective to the importance of getting this right. Making the imperfect comparison of the free exchange of ideas via the Internet and the Republic of Letters espoused by the Enlightenment, Darnton draws out the parallels between the two movements and where they diverge. Framing the debate in this light, however, bears out the fact that how Google ultimately ends up handling their endeavor will have far-reaching consequences for both good and bad. It is the unintended consequences that worry Darnton and that he brings to light in his article.

Invoking the public good, Darnton muses that libraries have traditionally been the repositories for the world's collective knowledge. While they must meet costs, they are ultimately responsible to their citizenry, so digitization projects enacted by libraries (or other non-profit entities) have a more natural inclination toward "public good." When a commercial entity embarks on a similar endeavor, the bottom line may become the ultimate motivator. It is here where the utopian idea of a universal library meets its demise according to Darnton. And he has valid concerns. Whether intended or not, Google will enjoy a monopoly by virtue of the new settlement. They have no legitimate competitors. And while Google has a proven track record of not abusing their considerable power, who's to say what could happen if the current owners would sell, retire or meet their demise? There are also no consequences outlined in the settlement if Google were to make a double-fisted money grab. While it states its guiding principles as "(1) the realization of revenue at market rates for each Book and license on behalf of the Rightsholders and (2) the realization of broad access to the Books by the public, including institutions of higher education," there is no accountability or mediation process in place to handle any perceived abuses or departures from these guidelines.

Darnton expresses his concerns with dignity and aplomb. Taking the time to peruse and think on his thoughts is time well spent as it is imperative that the generation of today takes steps to protect access to information for the generations to come.

(Added July 5, 2009)

Courant, P. (March 26, 2009). Google & books: An exchange. The New York Review of Books, 56(5), 49-50. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22496.

This article is actually a collection of letters which were initiated by the above article (hence the reason these two entries are out of alpha-order) -- one from Paul Courant and two professors from the University of Michigan, one representing authors' rights from Ann Kjellberg and five other literary executors and a response from Robert Darnton. It is an enlightening and erudite exchange, scholars politely, but emphatically, stating their positions, concerns and disagreements.

Courant feels that Darnton's view of Google is "dystopian" and overly skeptical of Google's intentions and motivations. Kjellberg expresses concerns that author's rights are being "dwarfed by the mighty interests of, on the one hand, entertainment conglomerates and, on the other, the mass readership." She and her associates are particularly worried that there is a significant lack of control over materials once they are digitized. Darnton's response points out the common ground he shares with each of his "critics," then emphasizes in clear and concise manner his concern over the commercialization and monopolization of the contents of research libraries. A fascinating exchange which illuminates several facets of the debate.

Helft, M. (April 4, 2009). Some raise alarms as Google resurrects out-of-print books. New York Times (Late Edition(East Coast)), A1. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from ProQuest.

Helft offers an excellent overview, in layman's terms, of the October 2008 Google Books settlement and those who are questioning some of its provisions. He identifies all of the major players, their positions in the debate and what future ramifications may be. His analysis is measured and fair and is an excellent introduction to the Google Books controversy and all of the key figures and arguments. (Darnton is quoted in this article.)

Levy, S. (March 31, 2009). Who's messing with the Google Book settlement? Hint: They're in Redmond, Washington. Epicenter Blog. Wired. Retrieved July 5, 2009 from http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/03/whos-messing-wi/.

This article demonstrates the numerous directions the Google Books debate takes. As the settlement awaits final court approval, various groups are opposing or contesting several aspects of the proposal. One such group is an internet-issues-oriented group from New York Law School. More interesting is the fact brought to light in the article, that the major funder for the New York Law School is Microsoft who since losing their own anti-trust case in the 1990's has been lobbying to have Google restrained. Levy lays out the tangled associations and behind-the-scenes connections between the law school and Microsoft (such as the lead attorney on the case being a former Microsoft programmer) and attempts to show how tainted many of the opposing voices to the settlement are. More than illuminating the battle between Google and Microsoft, the article serves as an example of the complexity of the case and its far-reaching implications.

Morrissey, J. (June 17, 2009). Librarians fighting Google's book deal. Time. Retrieved June 17, 2009 from http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1904495,00.html.

Morrissey's up-to-date article gives the latest information on the Google Books settlement including an amended agreement between Google and the University of Michigan which spells out terms of arbitration over future pricing disputes. The article also discusses the state of the settlement, the extension of the hearing and the concerns over privacy issues that have been raised if Google counts which pages are accessed by which patrons and for how long. This article helps unravel some of the most current key topics surrounding the settlement. (Courant is quoted in this article.)

Musto, R.G. (June 12, 2009). Google Books mutilates the printed past. The Chronicle Review, 55(39), B4. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from Lexis Nexis.

Medieval historian Ronald Musto takes unique umbrage with the Google Books project for its lack of quality control in the scanned imprints of the cataloged works. While he admits that no books "were harmed in the making of this database," he is alarmed by the "good enough" attitude he feels is evident by some the shoddy examples of scanning he has seen. As a historian familiar with partial manuscripts and destroyed artifacts, he does not want to see Google Books be yet another example of the mutilation of historical evidence. His consternation is fueled by the concern that the "Google reality" may become the only reality for future students and scholars and that "good enough" is not good enough when it comes to preserving primary resources.

Pike, G.H. (June 21, 2009). Google Books settlement still a bit unsettled. Information Today 26(6), 17. Retrieved July 5, 2009 from H.W. Wilson.

Pike offers another very clear and concise overview of the Google settlement and the controversies surrounding it and does a better than average job of explaining some of the intricacies and nuances of the deal. For those interested in a thorough, but understandable, dissection of the settlement and key players and issues, Pike's article offers a solid foundation.

(Added July 12, 2009)

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2007). The Googlization of everything and the future of copyright. University of California at Davis Law Review 40(3), 1207-1231. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf.

Vaidhyanathan articulates well many of the concerns and criticisms surrounding the project, but I think Darnton makes eloquent arguments against Google Books in a less abrasive manner and in one that is more gracious to Google's ultimate intentions. And while I don't take the invocation of God's name lightly, I don't see Sergey Brin's quote “The perfect search engine would be like the mind of God,” as ominously as Vaidhyanathan does. I take it that a good search engine would be all encompassing, all knowing, availing itself of all known knowledge much as God is omnipresent and omniscient. If Google seeks to be omnipotent (all powerful), we need to start worrying!

Contrary to Vaidhyanathan's assertion and/or hope that Google will be defeated it seems that with some caveats and adjustments the settlement that was reached in October 2008 will pass the final hearing phase this fall. Even the staunchest critics think that the settlement will pass the final hearing in some form or other. As professionals in the information access field, we will all need to remain vigilant and fight/right the unintended consequences that result. But I think we have cause for optimism as well. Tim Barton, president of Oxford University Press invokes Voltaire -- "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," (The perfect is the enemy of the good) when discussing the Google settlement. He then closes his recent article “Saving Texts From Oblivion: Oxford U. Press on the Google Book Settlement” by saying “Let us not waste an opportunity to create so much good. Let us work together to solve the imperfections of the settlement. Let us work together to give students, scholars, and readers access to the written wisdom of previous generations. Let us keep those minds alive.” I agree.

Battle of Epic Proportions or Bridge-able Chasm?

If an ancient scribe were chronicling current events, he would describe an epic battle with front lines drawn. The Authors Guild [AG], the Association of American Publishers [AAP], the American Library Association [ALA], the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School and a group of lawyers led by Prof. Charles R. Nesson of Harvard Law School would be on one side (Helft, 2009). Across the battlefield would be the gargantuan Google, a chasm separating the opposing forces with copyrights, antitrust law, monopolies, fair use, orphan books, economics and scholarship hanging in the balance. Who is David and who is Goliath? It's a toss-up. More importantly, who will win?

What started as the most enormous digitization project ever undertaken is now focused on the recent settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought by AG and AAP against Google. While most parties were initially satisfied by the ruling, some thinkers are increasingly concerned about the long term implications of the settlement.

Critics fear that instead of a universal library which will "dwarf the Library of Congress and all the national libraries of Europe" (Darnton, 2009), Google will become a universal bookstore. "The settlement, 'takes the vast bulk of books that are in research libraries and makes them into a single database that is the property of Google,' said Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system. 'Google will be a monopoly'" (Helft, 2009). In his own treatise on the topic, Darnton fears that "Google could also become the world's largest book business—not a chain of stores but an electronic supply service that could out-Amazon Amazon" (Darnton, 2009).

Google's lead lawyer Alexander Madgillivray disagrees, contending, "This agreement expands access to many of these hard-to-find books in a way that is great for Google, great for authors, great for publishers and great for readers" (Helft, 2009). And as Paul Courant of the University of Michigan (2009) points out in his response to Darnton, "After all, bookstores are fine places to read books. . ."

In reality, the chasm may not be as great as it initially appears. Darnton, in his elegant and thoughtful article, likens the free exchange of ideas on the Internet to the period of the Enlightenment embodied by the Republic of Letters (2009). While admitting that the metaphor is not exact and articulating many of the fear of critics, Darnton's comparison serves to illuminate the great potential in the Google Books project.

A phrase often bandied about is "public good," as in Google operating for the "public good" by opening up dusty tomes to the masses or critics claiming a Google monopoly will not function for the " public good." Google is adamant in their commitment to allowing the public to access their digitized collection. The ALA, scholars and public interest groups are pledging to make sure the settlement stipulates just that. These groups already agree that the world's citizenry will benefit, "but they say others should also have rights to orphan works. And they oppose what they say amounts to the rewriting, through a private deal rather than through legislation, of the copyright rules for millions of texts" (Helft, 2009). To help mitigate the monopoly charges, the settlement stipulates Google provide free access to its full text database on a single terminal in every public library, (but still hedges its interests by charging for printing pages from the texts (Darnton, 2009)). We can hope that it is the mutual interest of all parties in the "public good " that may build the bridge across the chasm.

Google Books: A brief history

I have seen the term “Google Books” many times in my Library Link of the Day emails, in headlines and blurbs online and on professional discussion boards and listservs to which I belong. Until now, I have not had even a working knowledge of what the project entails except that I knew Google wanted to digitize books and make them available online. “What's wrong with that?” I would think. “Why all the controversy?” Well, those were my shallow-as-a-puddle thoughts prior to having a week's worth of copyright study and reading several articles on the topic. Clearly there is much to be said on this topic as it touches on copyright laws, fair use, author & publisher rights, economics, educational freedom and free exchange of ideas. So now my knowledge is shallow as a pond, but growing deeper everyday. So join me . . . jump on in . . .the water is fine!

History
Google Books, in one incarnation or another, is a project that has been a part of the Google vision since the juggernaut's inception in 1996 according to the History of Google Books. What began as a dream to be able search the world's books page by page has led to a massive digitization effort which began in earnest in 2002 (About Google Book Search). Modeling themselves after other digitization projects such as Project Gutenberg and the Library of Congress' American Memory project, Google Books differs from most other digitization projects that focus primarily on rare, previously unpublished or out-of-print materials. Behemoth Google goes with the usual “Google gusto” for nothing less than a universal card catalog that indexes the world's books. “Our ultimate goal is to work with publishers and libraries to create a comprehensive, searchable, virtual card catalog of all books in all languages that helps users discover new books and publishers discover new readers” (Library Project).

To reach this ambitious goal, Google Books has a multi-pronged attack. They develop partnerships with both libraries and publishers/authors to digitize works to either display in full-text or as card catalog-type entries. By partnering with publishers, Google offers searchable access to in-print items and copyright holders are duly compensated. It is with the library partnerships where Google generates the controversy (Pike, 2009). Under the Library Project, Google would "scan the full text of all books in a library's collection, regardless of copyright status. For those books in the public domain, Google would provide the full text of the book in response to a search request. For those books still under copyright, Google would provide a Snippet View, or a small section of the book that was related to the search terms being used. Google would then provide a link to a bookseller or a library where the book could be purchased or borrowed" (Pike, 2009). Google contends that since only portions of the work are ever shown at one time, even though the entire work has been digitized, this constitutes fair use. The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers disagreed and filed suit in 2005 for copyright infringement.

In October 2008, a settlement was reached between the two litigants. It provides for the creation of a system where authors and publishers may register their copyrighted material with a Book Rights Registry. Users would be able to view up to 20% of the material online for free, but would have to pay a fee to view the work in its entirety. Google would take 37% of the revenue while the rest would be given to the Book Rights Registry to distribute to the authors and publishers (Pike, 2009).

Now a new controversy comes with books whose copyrights have not expired (so they are not in the public domain), but whose copyright holders cannot be found or identified. These so-called “orphans” would be licensed exclusively to Google with the potential to generate a large amount of revenue and wipe out any type of competition. Critics fear that without competition, or at least better regulation, access fees could skyrocket, jeopardizing the spirit of both copyright law and the scholarly free exchange of ideas.

Other aspects of the settlement have been criticized, as well. Under its terms, Google would be able to sell directly through Google Books, either to individuals per item or to institutions via subscription, with public universities and libraries having free access on a limited number of computer terminals based on patron numbers (Pike, 2009). They could also purchase greater access via Google's multi-tiered pricing structure. Critics fear that combined with Google's copyright control of orphaned works, their pricing of digitized materials would kill all competition. It is this possible violation of antitrust law that the US Justice Department is now investigating (Morrissey, 2009).

The enormity of the project guarantees both complexities and nuances which have generated the controversy surrounding the launch of Google Books. At the heart of the matter is both making sure that copyright holders are compensated adequately for their work and ensuring that Google does not create a monopoly on digitized works, ending competition, driving up fees and stifling the free exchange of ideas and scholarship.