RE: RE : More on Google

["Sloan, Bernie" <bernies@uillinois.edu>]

Sam Trosow said:

"For the most part, Google is seen as some sort of savior, and most of the
reaction from the library community has been uncritical."

See Roy Tennant's column in the new issue of Library Journal for a
critique:

http://tinyurl.com/6oj57 

Bernie Sloan

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Samuel Trosow
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:08 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: RE : More on Google

This article raises an interesting aspect of the whole Google digitization
project.  In a way, it is unfortunate that this project is being
undertaken by a for-profit company, and not by some non-profit entity
organized and controlled through the library/educational community.  The
claims of the publishers that one MUST get their permission before
digitizing seems to be somewhat overreaching for a number of reasons.  
First, such activities may constitute reasonable measures under both fair
use (section 107) and the library copying (section 108) provisions of the
Copyright Act. If the intended use is indeed permitted under one of these
sections, then there is no need to seek or gain such permissions as the
publishers are wont to demand.

On the other hand, the interposition of a for-profit entity, here Google,
makes the issue murkier. Certainly the section 108 exemption is lost and
most likely so is fair-use. Or at the very least, the claim for fair use
is weakened.

Wouldn't the whole issue be much simpler if this project was being led and
controlled by a bona fide non-profit activity? Keep in mind that even
under our current excessive copyright term, all of these works are
destined for the public domain, and it is quite reasonable to take
measures now in order to make these 'public domain to be' works permantly
accessible in a commons space.

What is the long-term opportunity cost for having Google involved in this
project?  Is the library/educational/non-profit community now more likely
or less likely to undertake a project of this type.  Given the reaction
from so many in the library community, I think it's less likely.  For the
most part, Google is seen as some sort of savior, and most of the reaction
from the library community has been uncritical. One might even make the
claim that the main reason Google is even cooperating with the libraries
is to somehow enhance its ability to claim fair-use. And in the case of
works in the public domain, what is to stop a private vendor from wrapping
the works in technological protectiona and then claiming that unauthorized
access violates the anti-circumvention rules?  Given the current state of
section 1201, not much.

Are these thoughts overly sceptical?  Perhaps they are, but it makes up
for the decidedly uncritical response from the library community on this
Google project as well as the whole Google phenomena more generally. Is it
beyond the scope of the library/education/research community to devise an
outstanding internet search engine under the wrapping of an open source
license?  I don't think it is. But by sitting on the sidelines and gawking
with amazement at just now neat-o Google is, we fail to think about other
ways of doing things that do not involve proprietary vendors who, in the
end, are only interested in making a profit. In the long run, the
library/education/research community should be looking at the whole Google
phenomena as a warning sign that we are not adequately protecting the
commons and and that we are conceding too much space to the private
market.

Sam Trosow
University of Western Ontario