Comments on: Library groups gripe about Google Book Search

Google's book-search program has allies and enemies among librarians. Now three library groups have filed complaints, but not an objection, to a book-search legal settlement.

[nicmart]

Why didn't the libraries get their butts in gear long before Google? Because librarians are, for the most part, socialist bureaucrats who do little more than protect and perpetuate their own careers. They hype mostly imaginary censorship threats while letting their own collections go to ruin. (Examine the music CDs at your local library.) There is a taboo against criticizing libraries, but in general they are no better run than the Postal Service or your state's motor vehicle bureau.

[britinmontreal]

Second that. Librarians and libraries have always tended to be "job for life" institutions with little or no interest in anything apart from collecting late fees and making anyone who wants to use the library WIFI pass over a DNA sample, stool sample etc etc.

Just like the music industry, sit around, watch someone else revolutionize the industry, then start moaning.

Oh wait, that's the automobile industry as well. No one buys your cars, you're bankrupt but your unions still want the employees to be paid 45$ an hour and keep their jobs even though your business has tanked and you can't figure out why during high oil prices no one wants to buy your Hummer.

[eleavings]

Oh good lord. Those comments are not even relevant to the article. YOU may not find libraries useful in your community but in many communities they are up-to-date, modern and provide free access to information and services unavailable on the internet or only at a fee. Additionally many libraries server as centers of free or low cost community entertainment and gathering spaces. Sure, there's plenty to criticize about libraries but they are far from useless and do serve many communities in great ways.

As the ALA said in their statement, "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". The objection is to the rights management and associated costs. Jeez, I'd think many CNET users above all would be sympathetic to any group worried about the restrictions inherent in DRM and other rights-restricting schemes.

[ryokowerx]

OK. I'm going to chip in here. I am a librarian.

First of all, we librarians work off a state or county budget. For those of you who think we're swimming in cash, I suggest that you check out how much of your tax dollars go to your local library (here's a hint: not a lot). If your music CDs in your local library are trashed, it isn't the librarians scratching them up for fun - you can blame your fellow citizens for that. And, when damaged items are made aware to us (we can't possibly check everything as it comes back in), a decision has to be made on if it would be better to get a new item or replace the damaged one. Its usually a better use of money to buy something new instead.

And new flash, folks. Libraries CANNOT compete with Google. Google has more money than God. We don't have the equipment, money or manpower to throw at a project like that. The beef is with the rights. Sure, we get a free access computer (that we have to maintain on our own dime once we get it) but we get no assurances that Google won't raise the cost of access later.

If you don't like how YOUR local library is being run, you can either continue to complain on internet message boards or you can become involved in your local government and make your voice heard.

[paulej]

If I had my way, we would close all of the local libraries on many neighborhoods. Seriously. In each county (or collection of counties), I would establish a single library that has a relatively strict check-out policy to avoid loss as you describe.

Why would I want to close the small libraries? They are largely useless. What I learned from my local library is that they generally buy and retain only new stuff. Old stuff is sold. And by old, I don't mean worn out or duplicate copies of things. The local library is not interested in maintaining books that are 10 or 40 years old. There is limited space, so they sell old books. What that means is that my local library is just making available for "free" the best sellers of the past few years. It is definitely not a place for any kind of research on any useful or interesting topic.

The library system in my location is broken and does not provide a very useful service. It sounds like yours has the same problem. You consider that to be only a little money, but I consider it a lot of waste nonetheless. I would much rather channel that money into the establishment of a useful library, even if that means there isn't one on every street corner.

FWIW and IMHO,

In any event, it appears that the Library groups have made a few
legitimate gripes that need addressing. Frankly I think this deal
stinks badly as again it basically abrogates the copyrights of orphaned works
to Google if no descendants can be found, very soon. Ergo giving Google
exclusive rights to works they did not originally publish nor author.
Secondly it gives far to little to the libraries in which they scan
those works, and thirdly, Google gets exclusive rights to post ads on those
snippets it provides of works it may highlight. To me that alone is
a significant restraint of trade in and of itself.

For these reasons amongst some others I originally proposed simply
the following amendments to this agreement to DOJ Anti Trust division:

1.) Google must continue to seek the descendants of the original authors
of the orphaned works for at least 20 years hence and do so out of the
proceeds of no less than 33% of same.

2.) That Google must deposit in a escrow those proceeds for that
search activity and outline what efforts those efforts have been in
great detail. These efforts must be than published in full for public
review and comment so as to provide for improvements in which
those search efforts can be improved, and so so in an online forum
not of Google origin or control.

3.) That alt least 10% of all gross proceeds from all sales including
advertising of the snippets Google agreed to provide will be available
for educational institutions to purchase any of the works they or any
other similar provider may in the future provide in a similar manner.

4.) That each library in which Google scans written works of, be
included in at least 33% of all proceeds individually.

5.) That Google not have the exclusive or any influence what so ever
on what is and what is not appropriate content and that no redactions
of any of these works be allowed as well as all scanned works be
available in full at the determination of the customer or requester.

6.) That google make avaliable any and all scanned works avaliable
free of charge in full to under privileged children under the age of 18,
and those adults that are financially distressed or who's annual income
is less than $32,000. And that all works will be made available to the
blind of sight impaired at significant discounted price in full without
exception.

My guess it though that Google will not accede to these terms, so
hopefully the DOJ will do it's duty and make a motion to the court
to consider these terms and amend the agreement accordingly by
order of said court. But I for one will find it difficult to understand
why, after all, as Vint Cerf is fond of saying, "Do good works" or
"For the greater good".

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
[e-mail]
My Phone: [phone]

[knowles2]

The they could just shut the project down. which is a far greater lost to society than anything in the contract let google do.

And if other people want to scan books then they should do it.

[mikeburek]

Librarians actually do an amazing amount of defending freedom of speech against Congress. Librarians are on the forefront telling Congress and the Executive branch that a person's library checkout history is off limits to searches. Individually, some might seem out of touch, but together, they are a very real defense for everyone's right to free speech.

Thank you, librarians.