[WEB4LIB] Re: [Fwd: Google, libraries, and privacy]

[Suzanne M. Gray]

This is correct.  Initially, the digitized materials will be available
only through Google Print, but we will have a copy that we can make
available through other means, and we are planning for that eventuality.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Suzanne Gray
Web Services Manager
University Library
University of Michigan
sgray at umich.edu
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Frank, Ilene wrote:

> Wait a second! In regard to ownership of the material that Google is
> digitizing, don't those libraries get to keep and use a copy of the
> digital files?
>
> "The University Library will receive and own a high quality digital copy
> of the materials digitized by Google. With ownership of these materials,
> the University will be able to provide access to the content in ways
> that are consistent with its mission as a great public university."
> http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2004/Dec04/library/index
>
> Doesn't that still leave U of Mich. with ownership of the files to do
> with what they will on behalf of their patrons?
>
> Sincerely,
> Ilene Frank, ifrank at lib.usf.edu
> Tampa Library, Reference Department
> University of South Florida
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib at webjunction.org
> [mailto:web4lib at webjunction.org]On Behalf Of Joseph Murphy
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 12:20 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: [Fwd: Google, libraries, and privacy]
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
> > But the privacy issue is one that we should consider before we turn
> > searching for library materials over to a non-library entity.
>
> An interesting point, and one which I wholeheartedly agree with in
> cases like OpenWorldCat. However, I'd argue that we're not talking
> about library resources once we let Google digitize and store them. At
> that point, it's the user's resource, not ours, and we have a long
> tradition of trying to stay blind to the user's intent.
>
> The implicit suggestion that libraries should either not provide
> materials to Google for digitization, or do so only if Google will
> formally restrict its business practices, seems to cut to the core of
> our belief in intellectual freedom. Somewhere down the road, do we
> start refusing ILL services to corporate libraries we disagree with, or
> government libraries if we disagree with agency policy, or Division 1
> schools if we think they fired a head coach unfairly?
>
> (I know that Karen has not made this suggestion, but I think there are
> elements in the privacy absolutist camp which would lead us down this
> road.)
>
> Granted, there are co-branding issues for the schools providing the
> material. While it's worth it for the schools to consider privacy
> issues, I personally wouldn't consider these potential concerns a
> dealbreaker, precisely because they are so easily foiled. Speaking of
> which, can anyone speak to the cobranding issues? Will we see texts
> marked as "Provided courtesy of the Standford Libraries"? Will they get
> to display a logo? Without knowing what delivery to the end user will
> look like, I'm not prepared to call this a "library service" any more
> than I'd call the Communist Manifesto a publication of the British
> Library for giving Karl Marx some desk space.
>
>  From the user services point of view, I'll continue to say that it is
> our job to do more education. I have to admit that I've never
> considered the privacy policy when deciding whether I should link to a
> resource. (But then, I've only worked at private institutions.)
> Ultimately, though, there's just too much good material on the Internet
> for me to believe in a more restrictive policy than caveat emptor.
>
> > Some of the articles I saw and some of the quotes had an element of:
> > "well, libraries can't afford to do this, so it's great that Google
> > will do it for us." Google isn't doing it FOR Libraries, Google is
> > doing it for Google. Which is fine as long as we realize that, and
> > realize that it is
> > not a substitute for library service.
>
> This is an excellent point. I think I interpret the quotes differently
> than Karen does ("Google has the money to do this faster and better
> than we can, and there's no good reason not to cooperate"), but
> ultimately, Google Print looks no more like library service than your
> local bookstore does.
>
> Joseph M. Murphy
> Librarian and Technology Consultant
> Library and Information Services
> Kenyon College
> murphyjm at kenyon.edu
> 740/427-5120
>
>
>
>
>
>
>