Mark Gimein’s article, "In Defense of Google Books", published June 23rd at thebigmoney.com, lauds the efforts of Google and its Book Search digitization project. While Gimein’s article is decidedly one-sided and especially hypercritical of Harvard librarian, Robert Darnton, the man who, at times, seems to be single-handedly leading the charge against Google and its efforts, Gimein does raise valid points about why Google’s project is a good thing.
Gimein argues that project opponents such as Darnton (who, by the way, was once one of the project’s most ardent supporters) are making wild, ill-founded claims against Google and its underlying purpose for taking on this project. For example, while Darnton and others claim that “Google Books threatens to develop a stranglehold on human knowledge and use it to gouge consumers,” and “rip off writers and publishers,” they fail to see that, as Gimein argues, Google, thus far, has shown no evidence of any intent to “rip off” the users of any of its products. Furthermore, books that have been abandoned by their publishers and sent to the graveyard of out-of-print books could experience renewed interest from a previously untapped audience. After the latest round of legal battles, Google is required to give authors 63% of the revenue earned from the ads it places in the preview of books in Book Search. Common sense should dictate that an author with an out-of-print book that is not generating any income would be happy to earn 63 cents on every dollar; after all, that’s 63 cents more than they had before. Additionally, as anyone knows, large publishers do not generally pick up unknown authors until an author’s book has a proven record of generating a large income. Therefore, it would seem that if a previously out-of-print book is generating buzz from its inclusion in Google Book Search that a publisher could put the book back in print and generate its own income. This would benefit all involved.
Another issue commonly overlooked in the great Google Book Search debate is that, in the book previews, Google offers links to various retailers along with the price of the text at that location, and even lists a “find it in a library near you” link. I might argue that if anyone in the virtual world has a “stranglehold” on information, it would be Amazon.com. It seems to me that if Google Book Search threatens the vitality and income of anyone, it would be Amazon, since other, possibly lower-cost options would be listed for all to see, along with the ultimate in low-cost book options, the library.
Lastly, while librarians such as Robert Darnton are complaining that libraries should be doing this digitizing themselves and offering access to all (because, as he says in his NYRB essay, libraries are, above all else, “free” and “for all”), no one is stopping them from doing so—they just aren’t doing it. But wait…if Harvard digitized its own collection and offered free access to everyone, then Harvard’s policy that all library users must have a valid Harvard ID or pay an exorbitant fee for limited access to some of its materials would become irrelevant, which could reduce Harvard’s library income and possibly even some of its prestige. (Not to mention that millions of people would then have, in some small way, a Harvard education without the hefty price tag.)
The fact that publishers and major universities are digitizing their own collections, while at the same time railing against Google Book Search and filing legal complaint after legal complaint, is nothing more than big business trying to hedge its bets and ensure that they make profit off authors one way or another, whether it benefits the author or not. After all, if publishers were looking out for authors’ best interests, they’d be paying a whole lot more in royalties and keeping more books in print, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Before reading this article I was well aware of what Google wanted to do with books that are out of print as well as those whose copyrights had gone to the wayside. I was completely against it. It would be a Googleopoly! They would own and be able to control all of which they would scan and the people that actually owned and wrote the material would lose everything-their creative rights, and money. I do agree with Monica that publishers are not looking out for their clients “rights” when they discontinue a book and don’t give the writer the correct compensation. But after reading this article- it is quite clear that none of this would happen. It seems as though certain people are trying to scare the public into thinking that Google would own this material after scanning it. I feel now that it would be a great thing for Google to do.
Yes, I supposed there is some risk involved maybe Google charging money) but their track record implies anything but. Google is a free information gateway and would continue to be so in my eyes. If the material copyright holder (or anyone who owns it in any way) doesn’t want it on Googles’ free site, then they can just say so and it will be taken down.I say that the people deserve this information; this material that has been gone for so long-if not for modern education for history education. I say good job Google!
Like Leanna, I have also been anti-Googleopoly and have tried to avoid using Google Scholar, which is actually a little silly on my part. This article was an eye-opener though. Gimein makes some legitimate points about the book project, including the fact that it is free, and although Google Book critics say this may change, it is still free at the present. Out of curiosity I explored the site a bit. In looking at a few of the titles, I found that after listing 4 commercial retailers, there is indeed a link to WorldCat, listing the libraries (in my state even!) who carry the title/edition. Out of further curiosity, for a couple of rare titles, I opted to click on the choice "All sellers" and was re-directed to *choose* the "Find in a Library." l liked this option.
I agree with Monica's point about digitizing library collections, many simply do not do it. There are many aspects to why this is, but let's take advantage of someone offering this service for free, especially for English language and US-based works. I did a little exploring into other criticisms of the project and found that actually, there is a cause for legitimate concern from international "rights holders" who reside in countries where copyright laws differ significantly from US laws, especially regarding the term "fair use." Google's policy of copy first, ask later, is in direct violation of some of these laws, but Google has been in negotiations with many groups, particularly the EU, for some time to try and iron out some of the problems. In any case, I will start to take advantage of the materials offered after reading this article and after my follow-up browsing.
One of the first things that popped into my head upon reading this article, and a point that Monica made in her entry, was that Google Book search provides a service, one that people seem to want, but that in no way means they are preventing other, similar services from being developed. I am sure that Google is not vying to be the only digital service around. They just so happen to be one that people know about because of Google’s mainstay in the daily online search practices of millions. Other companies have every right take Google’s idea and make it better if they so choose.
I actually used Google Books to find a book about my library leader while I was doing research for the biography assignment. It helped quite a bit because, with the preview feature, I could read the parts of the book available while I waited for the a copy I ordered to come in the mail. I don’t see how that is “gouging” me as a consumer, as opponents of Google book search suggest. Besides, it can’t make me feel any more “gouged” then when I walk into a Barnes&Noble with a $25 gift card and can by one, maybe two, paperback books. Forget a hardcover. To me, the price of printed materials makes them inaccessible to many people but no one is screaming that Borders or Barnes&Noble be closed down. So why has the possibility of exorbitant cost of online materials got people saying Google is the bad guy in all of this? And since no one knows yet what Google will charged, if it starts to charge for the service, how can anyone say that the cost will make materials inaccessible? Like Monica said, the only one’s who might hurt are companies like Amazon.com, because Google could offer a lower cost option.
I may be the last person on earth who had not yet heard of the Google Digitization Project, but it seems to me like a fantastic idea. I believe in sharing, and am appalled as Scout mentioned in her lecture at Disney's arrogance in copyrighting something that they stole to begin with. I truly think the world would be a better place if Harvard would make their lectures and books available online to everyone, as Monica mentioned. Education has become big business! So no wonder Google is so successful. Those of us who don't have inheritances are used to seeking out bargains and the remnant tables love Google and Wiki and other free things. 'Free is good!' is my slogan. I haven't yet looked into using the Google book search, but you can be certain that I will now.
I do understand the concern, though, that once this project is completed that somehow fees will appear. That seems to be the way of the world. When ATM's first appeared in the world, there were no fees attached. Many examples exist in many other areas of services that are introduced for free until people become dependent on them, then a charge is installed. Telephone, television, ATM's, etc.
I have a good friend who runs a school for pastors in South America who want to earn their doctorates in theology. For these men and women to move to the States and give up their jobs for the amount of time necessary to earn that degree is simply impossible. My friend is in the process of creating a dibrary, of books needed for study that are simply not available or not within the financial reach of his students. Google book search would be a wonderful tool for him to seek out many of those out-of-print yet still valuable texts.
I've been trying to remember, but it seems to me that I read somewhere that Google's company policy is something like "do no harm." If so, I would tend to lean to the side of trusting them in that they will do what they say, and keep this service available without fee.
I love Google, so I would just parrot every pro-Google comment written here. There are very few hours in the day that I don't use something Google-related - Google search, Google docs, Google calendar - you get the idea.
I see no issues with what Google wants to do here. Google has proven itself to be a fantastic provider of FREE information thus far. However, if in the future that needs to change, then so be it. Why should any corporation be required or compelled to provide a service for free? No one should expect anything for free in life and information like this should really be no different. For the time being though, it appears Google's intent is pure. How can any detractor attempt to penalize Google for something they haven't yet done (i.e. charge for its service)? Isn't that kind of like punishing a child before he misbehaves? Johnny, you've been really good all week, but I know that someday you're going to break the rules, so I'm going to ground you now, in anticipation that you'll do something wrong...
The initiative Google is showing here is admirable. No other institution has been willing to put forth the kind of money and effort that Google has. If anyone else wants to step up to the plate and compete against them, then so be it. May the best provider win!
Jackie, you are not alone--I too hadn't heard much about the Google Digitization project until now. I agree that Google is an amazing *free* service that helps me every day, but I'm very leery as to why someone who supported the project now would not support the project. It seems to me that someone on the inside would probably know best, is there something he knows that we don't know? Maybe I'm being overly suspicious, but I can't help but wonder.
Along those same lines, the last line of the article seems rather trite, "In the past decade, who has done more for public access to knowledge. Harvard? Or Google? If you want to pick sides in this debate, that's what really tells you everything you need know." That almost seems like comparing apples to oranges--Harvard is not in the business of information accessibly. Would you go to a doctor that was Google educated? Hopefully not. Would you go to a doctor that was Harvard educated? Yes. They are different businesses.
I look forward to reading more about the Google project, and from this article it sounds like a great idea, but again, I'm just very suspicious given the defensive tone of the article and someone who has "switched sides" so to speak.
Jenny and Jackie,
If you want to read the other side, you can do so by following the NYRB link near the end of my post. :)
I did a lot of reading before I decided this was a good thing, so I can give you more links if you want.
~Monica
I think that Google attempt to digitize books that are out of print is great! I was on the fence about the whole digital library, but I’m starting to become a big supporter. Just think of the research that can happen when people have access to all of these out of print books. I understand people are afraid that their might be a charge in the futures, but really…why does it have to be free? It might be worth it for people to pay a subscription to view an out of print book that might further my research. Most of these out of print books are probably not easy to find in local public libraries in the first place, and if some of the private libraries that may have some of these books charge fees for membership anyways (I’m thinking about Harvard in particular).
Beth also pointed out that Google is not intentionally trying to create a monopoly on this material. They are just the only company pursuing a project like this at this time. I hope that Google is successful because I think this is a great project!
I agree with Laura about the digital library idea. I used to be on the fence about it as well, but after this class, I've changed my mind. I used a Google Book online for my wiki site, and it was really helpful because it was one of the only books I could find about my person.
I think its great that Google is taking the initiative and digitalizing books that are no longer in print. This gives people the opportunity to access information they otherwise wouldn't be able to.
The people who oppose this seem odd to me. How can you blame someone for giving authors another way to get the public to take a look at their work? For the time being, its free and readily available. I also don' understand how they are upset that Google may charge for this in the future. If they do end up charging, I'm sure it will be because they need to to keep the site running, and I can't imagine the fee would be anything significant, surely nothing as expensive as a bookstore.
I think its great that Google stepped up and took the initiative to put such a foreward thinking idea into motion.
As per this week's readings discussion, I do think that there are great benefits to having Google scan books, particularly orphaned works. For books within copyright, there is the danger of the current practice of web-publishing these snippets of works, which usually consists of taking out every third page, or two pages in a row, or whichever method Google has deemed best. This can lead to the dissemination of out of context information. Of course, consumers always have the option to purchase these books in their entirety, but I wonder how many will just read the snippets?
I also think that Monica hit the nail on the head when she mentioned Harvard's scanning program. Yale is engaged in a similar program, in which they've partnered with Microsoft to scan out-of-copyright books. Microsoft has since abandoned this program, but Yale is continuing it. One wonders what kind of restrictions will be on the viewing or downloading of these books that were previously in the public domain. I guess the implication here is that it seems to be "if you own the digitized book, you own the copyright", because for rare out of print books, you virtually have a monopoly. Once the physical copies are lost or gone, only the digital remains. If somebody less ethical than Google comes along and decides to scan out of copyright books, what right does the general public have to access this material?
For the most part, with the volume of information available out there, which is expanding everyday, one company having a monopoly on old books of questionable import (other than as artifacts and part of the human record) seems more like an altruistic exercise in preservation rather than one in profiteering, but I think that all of the ethical implications should be considered, or those with the technology will once again make the rules.
Google Book is a great idea for someone trying to get a good look at what a book is about. Sure publishers may whine and people are getting tired of hearing "Google this" and "Google that" but frankly, it's a brilliant idea. How often do people read the backs of books looking to gleam some small insight into what's on the inside only to be left wanting, especially on Amazon.com of BN.com, or any number of websites? Publishers never give enough detail and sometimes you turn a book away because the back cover isn't insightful enough. I do it all the time. At least with Google Book you have the opportunity to read some of the book, enough to get a clearer picture of the rest.
Sadly, the only problem is that it is Google doing it. Google must have some brilliant brainstormers in the cubicles because they're always coming up with new and interesting ideas and cures for old problems. But are they becoming too much like Microsoft? Will they corner the internet market like Microsoft did the operating systems market? Only time will tell.
I too am a Google supporter. Actually in some small way we all are because we had to use gmail (google mail) email addresses just to be on this blog. Google is well on it's way to becoming an internet powerhouse. Personally I don't see a problem wiht it. As others mentioned if no other company is willing to put themselves out there and try a different approach then how can Google be blamed for having a monopoly.
As a company Google has just become a forerunner in the industry. I hope that their ideas start a chain reaction and that they do gain competitors that have ways to improve upon models that Google has put in place.
Based on the article, we have nothing to loose with the Google Books project. Even if a fee becomes associated with the service the authors and publishers will still get a kick back for what is sold. I say full steam ahead Google!
Post a Comment