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.
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.
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.
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
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!
