SIVACRACY.NET

Frankly, I have quite a few reservations about Mr. Band. He wrote a paper about Google Book Search for the ALA that seems to show a lack of objectivity and even reasoning. The paper can be found here:

http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googlepaper.pdf

There are a few assertions made in that paper that are problematic.

The first being that Google’s opt-out “feature” creates an implied license. This seems a stretch. It’s not the same as a web page tag asking Google to exclude digital content. It assumes that a publisher or content owner first, is aware that Google is making a copy of their content, and second, has the resources to compile a list of their content and the ability to submit it to Google to request exclusion. When one considers that there are over 80 years of publishing involved, incorporating tens of thousands of publishers and content owners and millions of publications, those assumptions seem strained.

Second, he contends that permissioning the work they intend to index would cost $1,000 per book and thus $25 billion for the estimated 25 million books potentially involved. I work in publishing and we permission and give permission for the use of material every day. His estimate is an unfortunate exaggeration. If Google had chosen to properly permission the content, I suspect the cost would be significantly less. Depending on the content, I suspect most publishers would ask for either nothing, an in-kind service in exchange, or less than 10 cents a page, which is more than what is charged for course packs or other public interest uses. I can’t see it in publisher’s interest to ask for more. We may never know however because Google hasn’t asked. But the $1,000 figure seems, well, ridiculous to anyone who has ever actually asked permission for the use of content. My guess is that of those publishers and content owners who would ask for compensation, they would ask for either their own copy of the digitized content, or less than $30 per book.

Third, using the $25 billion dollar figure, he then argues that the value of the social use of the index Google would create outwieghs the need to pay his estimated expense involved in permissioning the work, and the harm to the public an incomplete index would create overshadows any need to ask permission. He goes on to argue that any perceived market harm that might occur is insignificant when measured against the public’s need for a complete index. This argument makes three erroneous assumptions. First, opt-out already makes it an incomplete index. Second, that there is little or no market harm in the project. Third, that Google’s only intentions are for the public good. Considering that upon the completion of this project, Google will be in control of the only digital copies of more than half of the in copyright, but out of print books ever published, it seems naïve to assume that Google won’t try to leverage that advantage. Indeed, Google has already made public statements about selling that content online.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4598478.stm

Granted, they have promised those revenues would be shared with the content owners, but it would be on terms and conditions set by a corporation, not a public institution.

Finally, there is a very unfortunate assumption made that once all of this content is made available, Google has the means or interest in fighting government warrants, subpoenas, or National Security Letters over information on who is reading what content and where they are reading it. While Google has made much of their refusal to turn over statistics to the Department of Justice on searches for pornography, their behavior in China, and the fact that provisions of the Patriot Act may compel them to silently turn over such information, needs to be addressed.

For these reasons, and others, I’m not sure we should consider Mr. Band a “library hero”.

Frankly, I have quite a few reservations about Mr. Band. He wrote a paper about Google Book Search for the ALA that seems to show a lack of objectivity and even reasoning. The paper can be found here:

http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googlepaper.pdf

There are a few assertions made in that paper that are problematic.

The first being that Google’s opt-out “feature” creates an implied license. This seems a stretch. It’s not the same as a web page tag asking Google to exclude digital content. It assumes that a publisher or content owner first, is aware that Google is making a copy of their content, and second, has the resources to compile a list of their content and the ability to submit it to Google to request exclusion. When one considers that there are over 80 years of publishing involved, incorporating tens of thousands of publishers and content owners and millions of publications, those assumptions seem strained.

Second, he contends that permissioning the work they intend to index would cost $1,000 per book and thus $25 billion for the estimated 25 million books potentially involved. I work in publishing and we permission and give permission for the use of material every day. His estimate is an unfortunate exaggeration. If Google had chosen to properly permission the content, I suspect the cost would be significantly less. Depending on the content, I suspect most publishers would ask for either nothing, an in-kind service in exchange, or less than 10 cents a page, which is more than what is charged for course packs or other public interest uses. I can’t see it in publisher’s interest to ask for more. We may never know however because Google hasn’t asked. But the $1,000 figure seems, well, ridiculous to anyone who has ever actually asked permission for the use of content. My guess is that of those publishers and content owners who would ask for compensation, they would ask for either their own copy of the digitized content, or less than $30 per book.

Third, using the $25 billion dollar figure, he then argues that the value of the social use of the index Google would create outwieghs the need to pay his estimated expense involved in permissioning the work, and the harm to the public an incomplete index would create overshadows any need to ask permission. He goes on to argue that any perceived market harm that might occur is insignificant when measured against the public’s need for a complete index. This argument makes three erroneous assumptions. First, opt-out already makes it an incomplete index. Second, that there is little or no market harm in the project. Third, that Google’s only intentions are for the public good. Considering that upon the completion of this project, Google will be in control of the only digital copies of more than half of the in copyright, but out of print books ever published, it seems naïve to assume that Google won’t try to leverage that advantage. Indeed, Google has already made public statements about selling that content online.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4598478.stm

Granted, they have promised those revenues would be shared with the content owners, but it would be on terms and conditions set by a corporation, not a public institution.

Finally, there is a very unfortunate assumption made that once all of this content is made available, Google has the means or interest in fighting government warrants, subpoenas, or National Security Letters over information on who is reading what content and where they are reading it. While Google has made much of their refusal to turn over statistics to the Department of Justice on searches for pornography, their behavior in China, and the fact that provisions of the Patriot Act may compel them to silently turn over such information, needs to be addressed.

For these reasons, and others, I’m not sure we should consider Mr. Band a “library hero”.

He's a library hero for the work he has done over the years on behalf of libraries.

I disagree with his Google article as well. But that does not taint his reputation.