SIVACRACY.NET

Some dude named Walt who puts out a newsletter called Cites & Insights compares me to Bush Interior Secretary Gale Norton:

Siva Vaidhyanathan seems to have moved from an argument that GLP [Google Library Project] is a bad test case for fair use to a more general condemnation of Google. He now denounces GLP on several grounds—and concludes, apparently, that he knows more about librarianship than the directors of the Michigan, Stanford, Oxford, Harvard, and New York Public Libraries. He calls Coleman’s speech “disingenuous,” says that GBS offers “stunningly bad results” and offers libraries the arcane advice “Don’t throw away that card catalog just yet.” He calls the deal with Google “horrible,” and says “it is stupid and counterproductive” for librarians to “sign over control to an unaccountable private entity.” He says “libraries that are giving away the treasure have abrogated their responsibility to defend the very values that librarianship supports.” Vaidhyanathan claims to be pro-librarian/pro-library. Gale Norton claims to be an environmentalist. I, for one, was not aware that librarians were “signing over control” through participation in GLP or that librarians were “giving away the treasure” by lending copies of books (which is, after all, one of the things libraries do). Michael Madison at madisonian.net has been arguing some of these issues with Vaidhyanathan; Madison doesn’t seem to think we need to “stop Google to save librarians,” and I agree. Apparently, one of Vaidhyanathan’s arguments is that he had trouble finding Cory Doctorow’s Down and out in the Magic Kingdom using GBS—but searching for “science fiction magic kingdom” in Google yields the book right away. The problem here is that Doctorow’s novel apparently isn’t in GBS—so you can’t find it there, although it’s readily available through Google itself.

Now come on. First of all, Cory's book IS in Google Book Search. Second, Gale Norton is paid well to HARM the public on behalf of large, rich corporations.

I could be wrong about the Google stuff. But I am neither corrupt nor am I harming the public interest on behalf of large, rich corporations. And I am certainly not paid to take a particular position on anything.

I don't "know more" than these library directors. In fact, I know much less. That's the problem. I do, however, apparently care more about the values that libraries are supposed to uphold than those who have made these deals do.

These libraries are doing more than "lending books." Check out the Michigan contract. Then check out the Harvard and Stanford contracts ... oh yeah. You can't. They are secret. That's what we want in a library -- secrecy!

Then explain to me why these library directors signed non-disclosure agreements.

Explain to me why they did nothing to ensure that Google would protect user confidentiality.

Explain to me why they did nothing to ensure Google is saving the documents in an open image format for the sake of preservation and usability.

Explain to me why they did nothing to ensure that they can continually inspect the scanning machines and processes to ensure that Google is creating quality images without harming the books.

Explain to me what metadata standards Google is going to use for Google Book Search and why these library directors did not do anything to negotiate them.

And explain to me how -- under any theory of copyright or fair use -- the distribution of an entire copyrighted work as payment for a commercial transaction is legal.

Or don't librarians care about such values as user confidentiality, open access, stability and preservation, open and proper metadata standards, and the viability of copyright law? Last I checked, most librarians I know care very deeply about them.

Oh, that's right. I am not a librarian. How could I possibly know or care about such things?

Why would I worry my pretty little academic head about something as trivial as the fact that Google will have dossiers on the book search habits of millions of Americans? Let's let the library directors, Google's lawyers, and Larry Summers (who bragged that the Google deal was one of his great legacies to Harvard!) take care of such problems. Why should I care?

If you are going to participate in this debate and discussion, you better do your homework. And you better be clear about what values you are promoting and protecting.

At least Gale Norton is clear about her values. So I guess we have that much in common.