Google Book Search and the Psychology of Librarians

On Wednesday I attended a talk by John Willinsky.  Willinsky is the founder of Open Journal Systems and the Public Knowledge Project, two efforts to increase open access to peer-reviewed research.  He'll soon be moving  from  the University of British Columbia to Stanford, which has a particularly close association with Google.  Willinsky spoke passionately about the potential for two projects--mostly Google Scholar, but also Google Book Search--to increase access to knowledge.

Siva Vaidhyanathan, a prominent cultural historian and media scholar at NYU, was in attendance.  After the talk he strongly challenged Willinsky's positive assessment of the Google Book Search program. Google argues that the project is fair use because only snippets of copyrighted material are made available online.  Vaidhyanathan argues that these snippets are worthless to readers; that Google's search algorithms are extremely opaque and do not allow adequate access to public domain materials; and that the case that the company is violating fair use is a "slam dunk" (a phrase with resurgent power, given George Tenet's new book.)  Assuming that Google loses the cases now before the courts, Vaidhyanathan fears that the cause of copyright reform that takes account of digital realities (the core US copyright law is now over 30 years old) will be set back. 

Vaidhynathan's core argument: Rather than a profit-seeking company, it would be far better if nationally prominent libraries--such as the National Library of Medicine and the Library of Congress--took on the important task of digitizing and preserving the world's knowledge.

Hear hear Siva.  Over a year ago, I made this argument in the great Google Book Search debate that spanned two blogs.

But I must admit that, ultimately, I was willing to make a Faustian bargain with Google.  The cause of increasing access to knowledge is so pressing, and the alternatives seemingly non-existent, that it was OK with me for a corporate behemoth to do it.  This leads to the other critical part of Siva's argument: that librarians should lobby for a massive public digitization program, just as genetics researchers did for the Human Genome Project. 

That's right--librarians should get out there and argue for public investment in digitization.  The average citizen still associates a librarian with a kindly grandmother who shushes patrons and wears her hair in a bun.  A vigorous and sustained lobbying campaign for public digitization--which would be hard to make sexy, even though it is critically important for the future of research and scholarship--would change this perception. 

But it is even more important to change our perceptions of ourselves. As Siva spoke, I realized  a critical difference between life sciences researchers (like the geneticists) and librarians.  The scientists are used to fighting for their share of the pie; they don't always get everything they want, but they go after it.  Librarians are used to making do with little, and are masters at developing creative consortiums that stretch scarce dollars as far as they can possibly go.  We don't lobby very much, at least not on the public stage.

Two exceptions to this rule: 1. when a patron's privacy and unfettered access to information is threatened; and 2. the long-running movement for open access publishing.

1. This is why librarians are such fierce opponents of the Patriot Act, which allows for the government to rifle through patron records for no reason.

2. Open access promises free online access to--at a minimum--publicly supported research.  It's a very complicated debate, because the current publishing model often supports other worthy causes. But open access advocates are very passionate (sometimes to excess), because the goal of increasing access to information is paramount.

So when Google offered to massively increase access to information, at no cost to cash-strapped libraries, it felt like manna from heaven.

However, relying on Google to digitize library materials is problematic for two reasons--the philosophical inconsistency of allowing a private company to develop a public good;  and the potential legal ramifications of the project as it is currently designed. 

We live in a time when it is easier than ever for people to find information themselves, however incompletely or imperfectly they might do it.  But the core tenet of librarianship is unchanged: the profession is about linking people to knowledge. So today's librarian must be willing to venture into uncharted  waters.  To really be players in the Google Book Search debate, for example, we (me too) must develop a much sharper grasp of the relevant legal principles. And we have to get away from the "making do" philosophy towards "how do we make it better?"

Sure, change is very hard.  This philosophical shift in librarianship might take decades, during which time many trailblazers will tire of the fight.  But the reward for those who stick with it will be a revitalized and rewarding profession.

Comments

[Jane]

In an ideal world, Marcus, I'd also stand up for philosophical purity. But at heart I'm a pragmatist, and I think that we'd go a long time with less access if we waited for such a venture to be publicly financed.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. But it's good, and much, much better than waiting for perfect.

Disclaimer: I'm employed by one of Google's university partners. However, I speak for myself and only for myself.

[Marcus]

Normally, I'm apt to say that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

But if--and it's a big if--Google loses its copyright cases with the Association of American Publishers and Authors Guild, the entire project of modernizing copyright law will suffer. That's Siva Vaidhyanathan's concern. And Lawrence Lessig fears that Google will just buy its way out of the problem, setting a precedent that few other innovators could meet. The result in that case would be a Googleopoly.

Avoiding complications like these is why a public digitization program is best in the long run.