RE: Google's Card Catalog Should Be Left Open

["Stuivenga, Will" <wstuivenga@secstate.wa.gov>]

I'm not sure if there is confusion, or just a difference of opinion on
this notably tendentious issue among librarians, or between librarians and
search engine folks, perhaps.

As I'm sure everyone knows, Google doesn't really USE meta-data, such as
bibliographic records. At least not in the way they were intended to be
used. Instead of searching surrogates, Google prefers to search full text.
In the Google Print database, users will be locating books by keyword
searching the full text, not by searching bibliographic records as in
traditional library catalogs.

So in any sense in which Google is analogous to a library catalog as a
finding tool, it makes perfect sense for EFF to refer to Google Print as
their "card catalog."

I am told that there are already more than twice as many WorldCat hits
coming to OCLC from Open WorldCat than from libraries searching via the
more traditional FirstSearch interface. Can anyone believe even for a
minute that the same won't be true for the books that are included in
Google Print? The simple fact is, books indexed (if that's a legitimate
term to use) in Google Print will be found by users several magnitudes of
times more often than the same or other books in traditional library
catalogs. Whether users actually get their hands on any of those books, or
actually obtain useful information this way is another issue altogether.

So you may agree or disagree on whether this will be an effective means of
locating relevant materials, but the plain fact of the matter is that
Google is where most people go first for their information, not to their
local library, even via the library's online catalog.

Librarians should be more concerned about whether or not they're getting
their stuff out onto the open web where their users are than in arguing
over the semantics of what Google is doing. In other words, making sure
library holdings and catalog data are included in the OCLC Open WorldCat
project and any other available endeavors with similar goals.

Does Google have plans to link Google Print results into OCLC's Open
WorldCat records, so that folks who are lucky enough to locate a book
they're interested in can automatically be re-directed to a library, not
just to Amazon, and not just to the 5 libraries whose books were scanned?
These are kinds of questions we should be asking.

Otherwise librarians will still be arguing about the advantages of
controlled subject vocabularies even after they have become tokens of an
obsolete institution. Not that I really believe that is in imminent danger
of happening!

Will

Will Stuivenga wstuivenga@secstate.wa.gov
Project Manager, Statewide Database Licensing (SDL)
Washington State Library Division, OSOS
360.704.5217 fax: 360.586.7575
 

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Miller, Ron
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:27 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Google's Card Catalog Should Be Left Open 

There seems to be some confusion about the difference between a
bibliographic entry in a catalog and a copy of, or excerpt from, a book.

Ron Miller

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: EFF Press <press@eff.org>
Date: September 21, 2005 4:03:29 PM EDT
To: presslist@eff.org
Subject: [E-B] EFF: Google's Card Catalog Should Be Left Open

Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Contact:

Fred von Lohmann
    Senior Intellectual Property Attorney
    Electronic Frontier Foundation
    fred@eff.org
    +1 415 436-9333 x123 (office), +1 415 215-6087 (cell)

Google's Card Catalog Should Be Left Open

San Francisco, CA - Yesterday, the Authors Guild filed a class-action
copyright infringement suit against Google over its Google Print library
project.  Working with major university libraries, Google Print aims to
make thousands of books searchable via the Web, allowing people to
search for key words or phrases in books. The public may browse the full
text of public domain materials in the process of such a search, but
only a few sentences of text around the search term in books still
covered by copyright.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) applauds Google's effort to
create the digital equivalent of a library card catalog, and believes
the company has a strong case.

"Just as libraries don't need to pay publishers when they create a card
catalog, neither should Google or other search engines be required to
when they create an improved digital equivalent," said EFF Senior Staff
Attorney Fred von Lohmann.

In defending the lawsuit, Google is relying on the copyright principle
of fair use, which allows the public to copy works without having to ask
permission or pay licensing fees to copyright holders. EFF believes
Google is likely to prevail on its defense. One key point in Google's
favor is that Google Print is a transformative use of these books -- the
company is creating a virtual card catalog to assist people in finding
relevant books, rather than creating replacements for the books
themselves.

In addition, it is almost certain that Google Print will boost, rather
than hurt, the market for the copyrighted books. "It's easy to see how
Google Print can stimulate demand for books that otherwise would lay
undiscovered in library stacks," said von Lohmann. "It's hard to see how
it could hurt publishers or authors."

For additional legal analysis, EFF recommends the white paper, "The
Google Print Library Project: A Copyright Analysis," recently published
by noted DC copyright attorney Jonathan Band of Policy Bandwidth.

The Google Print Library Project: A Copyright Analysis:
http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.pdf

For this release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_09.php#003994

-end-