« The Velvet Rope | Main | Something Wiki This Way Comes »

The Rush to 'Amazonize' the library: A Public Service or another Corporate Boondogle?

The Chronicle:

Amazon Will Digitize Universities' Books and Sell Print-on-Demand Copies

By DAN CARNEVALE

Amazon, which made its name selling books online, is now entering the book-digitizing business.

Like Google and, more recently, Microsoft, Amazon will be making hundreds of thousands of digital copies of books available online through a deal with university libraries and a technology company.

But, unlike Google and Microsoft, Amazon will not limit people to reading the books online. Thanks to print-on-demand technology, readers will be able to buy hard copies of out-of-print books and have them shipped to their homes.

And Amazon will sell only books that are in the public domain or that libraries own the copyrights to, avoiding legal issues that have worried many librarians -- and that have prompted publishers to sue Google for copyright infringement.

The books Amazon will offer will include many rare volumes -- some that are hundreds of years old and others that are too brittle to be handled by people day after day. With digital scanning and printing technology, such books can be reproduced for anyone who wants to buy them.

"We wanted to get more content to Amazon customers," said Kurt Beidler, senior business-development manager for Amazon. And the company wanted to keep librarians' concerns in mind as well, he said. "We have a platform that puts the library in control."

Amazon is working with a company called Kirtas Technologies, which sells book-digitizing equipment. Libraries participating in the project will buy the equipment and decide which books they want to scan. Amazon can then use the digital files to sell hard copies of the books, sharing the profits with the libraries and Kirtas.

So far two university libraries -- at Emory University and the University of Maine at Orono -- have signed on to the deal. The Toronto Public Library and the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County are also participating.

Martin Halbert, director for digital programs and systems at Emory's Robert W. Woodruff Library, said Amazon's approach was more appealing than Google's because the Amazon project lets the libraries control what books get digitized and what happens to the digital copies of the books. Although Google has agreed to limit its digitizing at some of the libraries it works with, the company has said repeatedly that its goal is to digitize as many books as possible.

Mr. Halbert said Emory found the Amazon program attractive "for preservation purposes as well as access purposes." He added: "We're not looking at this as a way to make money." Emory has about 200,000 books that it can digitize, some of them from the 1500s.

Lotfi Belkhir, chief executive and founder of Kirtas, said his equipment can scan and digitize 2,400 pages of text automatically in an hour. With little help from humans, he said, the machine even turns the pages -- carefully, so as not to damage old books. "It can handle the most fragile books really well," he said.

The digitized copies are of high enough quality, he said, that they can be made into e-books, microfilm, or hard copies. "It's a quality that stands the test of time, that can meet the needs of current as well as future generations," Mr. Belkhir said.

The machines usually cost $189,000 each, but the company gives discounts to nonprofit organizations, and has given even steeper discounts to the libraries in the partnership, he said. Mr. Belkhir would not divulge other details of the deals with the libraries.

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, if Martin Halbert is involved in the policies and decisions, then it will be done with attention to quality and care. Second, Amazon has been cozying up to libraries for longer than Google has. I have many questions about this process.

Some reasons why Amazon is better than Google:

1) Any search engine could capture the records and perhaps even the text.

2) By working with limited collections at only a handful of libraries, Amazon could be more careful with its process and its rhetoric. There will be no ridiculous claims of "the universal library" or "all the knowledge of mankind" and crap like that.

Some reasons why Amazon would not be better than Google:

1) It's still a massive privatization of public treasures.

2) It fractures the set of digitized books even more. Now there are three major projects.

3) It's still clearly a profit-making venture for Amazon and thus its persistence and proliferation will depend on its benefits to Amazon stockholders rather than the interests of the library community.

Comments

You say:

"1) It's still a massive privatization of public treasures.

2) It fractures the set of digitized books even more. Now there are three major projects.

3) It's still clearly a profit-making venture for Amazon and thus its persistence and proliferation will depend on its benefits to Amazon stockholders rather than the interests of the library community."

1 is incorrect, the public treasures will still be at the library, as readily available as they were before.

What's wrong with 2? For preservation, competition and innovation's sake I would like to see more projects. Why should there be fewer instead of more?

As to number 3 who ever believed that any of these projects were for the benefit of the library community? And what is the library community anyway? The librarians and administrators or the public which uses the libraries. Finally, what's wrong with making a profit? Is it illegal or immoral to make a profit?

Good points.

So it's a privatization because for most of the people who would use the materials they must go through a private gateway.

If the multiplication of efforts were a competition among firms with similar services or products, the fracturing would not be a problem. But each service will have a different collection. So users will not be able to do simple and comprehensive searches. That's fundamentally bad from a research and public service point of view.

The library community is me, you, our kids, and everyone who uses and works in a library.

What's wrong with profit? Nothing per se. But if it's the result of corporate welfare I have a problem with it.

profit... in which sense or meanig are you guys using the word?...excess income after all costs are paid... what's wrong with balance? equality? fairness? social resposability? Excess income after cost is the reason the present system is unsustainable. I guess greed or avarice beats all so some of us must exist to allow the greedy to prosper. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.?!

Bobc: That's why I tell people that capitalism is state sanctioned theft.

Siva: If you're trying to optimize something for some specific use then one of a thing is better than two, is better than three, and so on. I was looking at it the other way and thinking not of optimizing success but of minimizing failure.

You recently posted "Google still offers really bad search results; Librarians still essential". That's exactly what I am talking about. It would be optimal if Google search was all one needed but if it fails and it does, thank goodness for librarians. It will be even better to have another book search option when Google fails. There are other types of failures: legal challenges to one book search or another, capricious decisions on the part of management at one booksearch or another, capricious decisions on the part of one library or another, bad search algorithms, et al. It is inconvenient for researchers to use more than one book search but overall more books will be available in more forms. The system will be more robust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?