[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Privacy and the Google settlement (long, sorry)
- To: "liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: Privacy and the Google settlement (long, sorry)
- From: Rick Anderson <rick.anderson@utah.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:47:54 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On 7/28/09 5:50 PM, "John Buschman" <jeb224@georgetown.edu> wrote: > I take exception to a number of assumptions here... John's response to my posting seems, in significant part, to be a response to someone else -- someone who has argued that Google should be invited to gather data from patrons' library records, who wishes to "define (the library) out of existence," who doesn't believe that our government snoops or, if it does, that government snooping is a problem, and who proposes that libraries make it their mission to "track & market to our users just like Amazon or Verizon." I think anyone who reads my original posting will see where it diverges from these characterizations. I do want to respond to a couple of John's more substantive points, though. First of all, we may like it or we may not, but the fact is that every library is in fact a broker. Libraries take money from their patrons, pool the money, and use it to purchase and distribute access to information products that most individual patrons could not buy for themselves. In return, librarians are paid for their work. Whether these facts require one to regard the library as a "business" depends, I guess, on whether one can formulate a definition of professional brokerage that does not necessarily imply the conduct of business. Personally, I can't come up with such a definition. Maybe the library is a business the way NPR is a business rather than the way Exxon is a business, but it seems to me that it's still a business. It also seems to me that when librarians try to pretend otherwise, patrons end up being hurt more than helped. Second, if my awkward attempt at concision came across as blitheness in dealing with these important issues, then that's my fault and I apologize. Let me be clear: I am, in fact, dead serious about the urgency of our response to the Google settlement. I'm convinced that when the settlement is approved its impact on research libraries will be seismic, and we had better get very serious very quickly about our response to it. Serious responses would include realistic and visionary answers to the question "What are we going to do differently when a substantial part of our role has been taken over by Google?". In my opinion, our profession's responses so far have generally not been serious. Talking about patron privacy is not a serious response to the Google settlement -- not because privacy is unimportant, but because the settlement itself poses no serious risk to patron privacy. Talking about "heightening inequalities among libraries" is not a serious response -- not because equity doesn't matter, but because the Google settlement will have the net effect of increasing everyone's access, even if the increase is uneven across institutions. Warning that Google may someday raise its prices is not a serious response -- not because price doesn't matter, but because, for crying out loud, everyone raises their prices, including libraries (which ask for budget increases regularly, and sometimes actually get them). Yes, Google's financial strength and functional near-monopoly on the digitized versions of GBS books puts it in a position, theoretically, to raise prices with relative impunity -- but suppose it did so. How would we be worse off than we were before, when full access to digitized versions of those books was unavailable at any price? The worst-case scenario in terms of price is the current status quo. I realize I've expressed myself in strong terms here, but I think this issue is too serious for pussyfooting around. I think that our profession may be facing an existential challenge, and that as a profession we are tending to respond to it with emotionally resonant, self-congratulatory sloganeering rather than actual strategies. As someone who loves libraries, who believes that the world would be poorer without them (even with Google Book Search), and who would like to work in them for another, oh, 22 years or so, I would very much like to see us get serious. -- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dir. For Scholarly Resources & Collections Marriott Library Univ. of Utah
- Prev by Date: Re: Privacy and the Google settlement (long, sorry)
- Next by Date: AAAS 2010 pricing ... and still extra for ScienceXpress
- Previous by thread: Re: Privacy and the Google settlement (long, sorry)
- Next by thread: RE: Privacy and the Google settlement (long, sorry)
- Index(es):