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.