Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Google & Books

Robert Darnton is always worth reading, and he does not disappoint in his “Google and the Future of Books,” The New York Review of Books 56, no. 2 (February 12, 2009):9-11. Darnton, being the historian of the eighteenth-century that he is, starts his analysis of the Google digitization copyright deal with the promises of that earlier era’s Republic of Letters, where people could become citizens by engaging in reading and writing. It is not a perfect comparison, as he himself admits: “Despite its principles, the Republic of Letters, as it actually operated, was a closed world, inaccessible to the underprivileged. Yet I want to invoke the Enlightenment in an argument for openness in general and for open access in particular” (p. 9).

Initially, Darnton tackles some of the more inane features of recent copyright legislation, where “When it comes to digitization, access to our cultural heritage generally ends on January 1, 1923, the date from which great numbers of books are subject to copyright laws. It will remain there—unless private interests take over the digitizing, package it for consumers, tie the packages up by means of legal deals, and sell them for the profit of the shareholders. As things stand now, for example, Sinclair Lewis's Babbitt, published in 1922, is in the public domain, whereas Lewis's Elmer Gantry, published in 1927, will not enter the public domain until 2022” (p. 9). Yep, that doesn’t make much sense to me either. So, maybe this Google thing is fine after all.

Darnton provides some history of libraries and scholarly publishing, and disciplines as well, to note how complex the world has gotten and how different it is from just a couple of centuries. Darnton believes that the library is still at the center of the university (and the universe), but that it exists now because of its ability to utilize cyberspace via its networks. And he believes that some of the old disciplinary and other barriers to learning have collapsed, where the Republic of Letters can now support both professional scholars and a host of amateurs: “The democratization of knowledge now seems to be at our fingertips. We can make the Enlightenment ideal come to life in reality” (p. 10). Now we are breathless.

Hold on. Darnton reminds us that there is a “fundamental contradiction” in this Googlization of the world’s libraries: “Yet if we permit the commercialization of the content of our libraries, there is no getting around a fundamental contradiction. To digitize collections and sell the product in ways that fail to guarantee wide access would be to repeat the mistake that was made when publishers exploited the market for scholarly journals, but on a much greater scale, for it would turn the Internet into an instrument for privatizing knowledge that belongs in the public sphere” (p. 10). This does not deter Darnton from grasping the more positive benefits from the digitization of all this stuff, although he states that in order to digitize we must also democratize: “We must open access to our cultural heritage. How? By rewriting the rules of the game, by subordinating private interests to the public good, and by taking inspiration from the early republic in order to create a Digital Republic of Learning” (p. 10).

What worries Darnton is that we are allowing the lawsuit against Google to settle an important issue of public policy, noting that it is already too late to do much more than worry about the future, contending that the “settlement creates a fundamental change in the digital world by consolidating power in the hands of one company. Apart from Wikipedia, Google already controls the means of access to information online for most Americans, whether they want to find out about people, goods, places, or almost anything” (p. 11). He is worried, and we all should be worried as well. Darnton believes that “if we get the balance wrong at this moment, private interests may outweigh the public good for the foreseeable future, and the Enlightenment dream may be as elusive as ever” (p. 11). Too bad, I liked the dream.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

..."Apart from Wikipedia, Google already controls the means of access to information online for most Americans, whether they want to find out about people, goods, places, or almost anything” (p. 11). He is worried, and we all should be worried as well. Darnton believes that “if we get the balance wrong at this moment, private interests may outweigh the public good for the foreseeable future, and the Enlightenment dream may be as elusive as ever” (p. 11). Too bad, I liked the dream."

That's very noble to read about, but aside from Google and balancing private interests and public good via 'access', I'd like to ask him what his public 'open' access policies are at all Harvard libraries as well as mass digitized collections. It's not always the same kumbaya. Many years ago I interviewed at one of the HU libraries and access was restricted not only to users from the general public at certain times, but also restricted according to what school or discipline users were from even at the same university. just had a flashback reading this, maybe it's not related, but it's kind of ironic to read at times about 'open' access. It should require a reconsideration of all collection access policies.

Anonymous said...

..."Darnton, being the historian of the eighteenth-century that he is, starts his analysis of the Google digitization copyright deal with the promises of that earlier era’s Republic of Letters, where people could become citizens by engaging in reading and writing..."

Not only is he a historian, but it's worth noting for those who are not familiar, and esp important to point out, that he is also the Director of the Harvard University Library, following Sidney Verba's leadership.

more details here provided at the link below:

"Robert Darnton is Harvard’s Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of the University Library. An alumnus of Harvard College and Harvard’s Society of Fellows,
a former Rhodes Scholar and MacArthur Fellow, and Chevalier of France’s Légion d’Honneur, Darnton is an internationally recognized scholar on the history of the
book and the literary world of Enlightenment France."
"In June 2008, The New York Review of Books published this article under the title “The Library in the New
Age.”

"The research library in the digital age" Robert Darnton (pdf, 7pp)

http://hul.harvard.edu/publications/Darnton_ResearchLibraryDigitalAge.pdf

..."In another sense, the Harvard University Library is a department of the University's Central Administration that reports to the president. Known as HUL, this distinct department is headed by the senior faculty member who holds the title of Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of the University Library. In addition to serving as the head of HUL, the director interprets the technical and organizational challenges of the library system to the president and serves as chief steward of the collections for the Harvard Corporation"

from the Harvard University Library website:

http://hul.harvard.edu/about.html

Anonymous said...

.."This does not deter Darnton from grasping the more positive benefits from the digitization of all this stuff, although he states that in order to digitize we must also democratize: “We must open access to our cultural heritage. How? By rewriting the rules of the game, by subordinating private interests to the public good, and by taking inspiration from the early republic in order to create a Digital Republic of Learning” (p. 10). ...

"Darnton believes that “if we get the balance wrong at this moment, private interests may outweigh the public good for the foreseeable future, and the Enlightenment dream may be as elusive as ever” (p. 11). Too bad, I liked the dream."


I am not sure if this article in Library Trends from Fall 2008 was already noted somewhere previously, but I find it related to this recent article by Darnton, and another view on open access digital preservation, repositories

It has been a very popular cited article amongst academic and research librarians, full text is linked below from Univ Wisc Madison digital library

//////////////////////////////

Innkeeper at the Roach Motel

Author(s) Salo, Dorothea

Citation Salo, Dorothea. "Innkeeper at the Roach Motel." Library Trends 57:2 (Fall 2008).
Date Dec 11, 2007

Subject(s) institutional repositories; open access

Abstract "Trapped by faculty apathy and library uncertainty, institutional repositories face a crossroads: adapt or die. The “build it and they will come” proposition has been decisively proven wrong. Citation advantages and preservation have not attracted faculty participants, though current-generation software and services offer faculty little else. Academic librarianship has not supported repositories or their managers. Most libraries consistently under-resource and understaff repositories, further worsening the participation gap. Software and services are wildly out of touch with faculty needs and the realities of repository management. These problems are not insoluble, but they demand serious reconsideration of repository missions, goals, and means. "

Permanent link http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/22088
http://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/22088