[tt] CHE: Librarians Accuse Google of Using and Discarding Them

[Premise Checker]

Librarians Accuse Google of Using and Discarding Them
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3156/librarians-accuse-google-of-using-and-discarding-them?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
July 10, 2008

Is Google casting aside the library community? That's the recent 
conclusion of some librarians. The giant technology company once courted 
librarians to back its controversial project that digitizes books from 
academic libraries and makes all or parts of the texts available online. 
Now it seems Google no longer needs them, the librarians say.

Steven M. Cohen, a senior librarian at Law Library Management Inc., notes 
on his blog that Google last updated its "Librarian Central" blog a year 
ago. And he and Roy Tennant, a librarian with the Online Computer Library 
Center, say that, atypically, Google wasn't present at the American 
Library Association's annual conference last month, even though it was 
held in Anaheim, Calif. "only one short plane ride away from the 
Googleplex" also in California, writes Mr. Tennant.

"So, Google will continue to use librarians, scan their books, profit from 
it, and then leave us in the information dust to rot like an old microfilm 
machine," writes Mr. Cohen. "It's sad really. But then again, we fell for 
it."

Sara Houghton-Jan, digital futures manager for the San Jose Public 
Library, writes that Google has left librarians feeling like "chumps."

Bill Drew, a librarian at Tompkins Courtland Community College in New 
York, reports today that he received a response to the librarians' 
complaints on his blog—albeit not from Google. Pam Saenger, who helped run 
Librarian Central, says she is no longer employed by Google. "I think 
they're planning on sending out a librarian newsletter imminently," she 
writes of the company.—Andrea L. Foster
Posted on Thursday July 10, 2008

Comments

1. As a professional librarian I certainly understand Mr. Cohen's 
perspective. However, his quote is, I would suggest, rather presumptuous. 
The phrase "
scan THEIR books
" – since when did the books in libraries 
become owned by librarians? They are not OUR books. If anything they 
belong to the authors. Commercial companies such as Google are in the 
business of making money, not providing social services. To the extent we 
librarians provide some useful and valuable expertise and ability 
companies will "use us". To the extent we don't they won't. Why is that 
even an issue? That's capitalism!
--GB    Jul 10, 10:26 AM

2. I suppose then, GB, that you won't mind if I drive my fleet of moving 
vans up to the library that you work at and take them all away. After all, 
they aren't "yours". Oh, yeah – but the institution that you work for paid 
for them. As did the institutions that are working with / being exploited 
by Google (depending on your PoV). The point being, Google didn't have to 
pay any money for those materials. Obviously they are spending money to 
digitize them. But if they didn't see a payoff for doing so, do you really 
think they would be doing it? Point being, whose interest are we serving? 
It sounds more and more like we are serving Google's interests, which 
appear to be very much different from our own and not as compatible as we 
thought / they claimed.--Scott    Jul 10, 12:29 PM

3. It is sad to see such Gormanism from some members of the library 
blogging community, thanks to whom we now have yet another piece in the 
news that portrays librarians as anti-Google. Hopefully, the vast majority 
of librarians who no doubt disagree with the sentiment expressed in this 
article will speak up. Google remains indispensable, valued, and 
extraordinarily friendly to academic libraries and what we do.--Marc 
Gartler    Jul 10, 12:30 PM

4. How is making electronically available nearly a million books to 
everyone on the planet "taking advantage" of anyone? It seems Google has 
given these librarians resources unprecedented in the history of the 
world. This is true intellectual common-wealth in action. Three cheers for 
Google.--John    Jul 10, 12:36 PM

5. Marc:
  I'm not anti-Google. I use it all the time. It's the best engine out 
there and I love it. I use Google for news, RSS reading, and the Google 
Book search. That has nothing to do with the facts that I pointed out in 
my blog post. It's not an anti-Google statement at all. It's an 
anti-relationship/anti-partner issue that BigCo's like Google don't care 
about. And Gormanism? Really?
--Steven M. Cohen    Jul 10, 12:37 PM

6. About a year and a half ago, librarian Meredith Farkas blogged about 
the concept of charitable reading – the idea that one should read what 
discussions on the internet with the belief that the author meant the best 
possible thing that could be interpreted from their writing, not the 
worst. I bring this up because I believe GB has deliberately misunderstood 
Steven Cohen's post. Nowhere did Mr. Cohen say, "Librarians own books." 
What he wrote was, "So, Google will continue to use librarians, scan their 
books
" While one could interpret this as suggesting that librarians own 
books, a more charitable reader might believe Mr. Cohen meant "their 
libraries' books."
  Furthermore, I think GB's suggestion that "They are not OUR books. If 
anything they belong to the authors." is even farther off the mark. 
Libraries own books. They purchase them or receive them as donations. I 
believe it to be utterly reasonable for librarians to feel a sense of 
ownership for their libraries' collections – since librarians are, 
generally, responsible for the purchase, subscription, or disposal of 
items in their libraries' collection. In any case, I think the question of 
whether or not librarians "own" books is irrelevant to the point of the 
article. GB argues that for librarians to be used and abandoned by Google 
is simply a matter of Capitalism. I disagree. Yes, Google is certainly in 
the business of making money, as is any "commercial company." I don't 
really think anyone was under the illusion that they were otherwise. 
However, I think the heart of the matter is the fact that Google led us to 
have certain expectations about the relationship between Google and 
librarians, and thus far, they appear to have failed to fulfill these 
expectations. In the first edition of the Google Librarian Central 
newsletter, Jodi Healy talks about Google's first visit to the ALA 
conference in 2005. She intimates that there were several useful 
discussions to occur at that conference, and says, "In an effort to keep 
those conversations going, we're launching this newsletter. Consider it a 
first step toward what we hope will be a long and mutually beneficial 
relationship."
  Perhaps Google has a different definition of "long and mutually 
beneficial," but one and a half years of posting – followed by a year of 
silence – does not strike to me as a "long" relationship. As one person, I 
cannot speak as to whether it was a beneficial relationship – I did find 
the newsletters and blog posts occasionally useful. Given the lack of 
communication from Google, several people, including myself, have drawn 
the conclusion that Google no longer finds the relationship beneficial. If 
Google is planning to send out another newsletter imminently, as former 
employee Pamela Saenger indicates, I will attempt my best to read it with 
a charitable eye. Until then, silence speaks louder than words.--Laura 
Harris    Jul 10, 12:42 PM

7. You librarians actually think you're important? We will chew you up and 
spit you out like a Harvey Kuehn wad of chaw.--Googleman    Jul 10, 12:52 
PM

8. Enlighten me, Scott: In what way are Google's interests "very much 
different" from Libraries? Both want a satisfied user, no?
  Until someone can explain to me how what Google has done hurts the USER 
rather than merely hurting the delicate feelings of a few librarians (who 
aren't even involved in the project), then this is much ado about nothing 
(my apologies for copying that line from a book owned by lots of 
libraries). In addition, this whole thing seems to have been set off by 
Google apparently snubbing ALA Annual. Guess what? A lot of us do--there 
just isn't much there of value.--michael    Jul 10, 01:02 PM

9. Librarians have been fans of Google from the beginning. We use it for 
work purposes and in our personal lives. But we aren't limited by it – we 
can get what we want elsewhere and frequently do. If you read the full 
posts by Mr. Cohen and our other worthy colleagues it seems apparent that 
the points they are making is that Google, which we have generally come to 
respect for it's products and corporate ethics, has taken advantage of the 
profession by catering to us when it was necessary, and then "not calling 
us back" after the deed was done. That was the main point. Is that what 
corporations do? Sure, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating and we 
hold Google to its own stated standard of idealism. Many thanks to Mr 
Cohen, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Drew, and Ms. Houghton-Jan for making these 
observations.--Chadwick Seagraves    Jul 10, 01:05 PM

10. I disagree with Steven Cohen's assertion that "we" fell for it. To be 
precise, here's who fell for it: 
http://books.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html
  It appears that few or none of the US institutions listed have faculty 
librarians, which undoubtedly contributed to the poor institutional 
decisions to "partner" with Google.--Al    Jul 10, 01:14 PM

11. "It appears that few or none of the US institutions listed have 
faculty librarians, which undoubtedly contributed to the poor 
institutional decisions to "partner" with Google."
  This implies that only faculty can make sound, service-based business 
decisions on behalf of America's libraries, which is not only insulting to 
those in our profession who do not have faculty status but are 
professionals and academics working hard for their institutions, but is 
also, frankly, laughable.--Jenica Rogers-Urbanek    Jul 10, 01:34 PM

12. Not all librarians feel like they've been used. See 
http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php/2008/07/10/love-for-sale/
  Al, do you honestly believe that the libraries went into these deals 
without the full support of university counsel and the university 
administration? PLEASE! Your ignorant swipe at librarians really does not 
deserve a rebuttal.--Meredith Farkas    Jul 10, 01:52 PM

13. Wouldn't it be nice if the "charitable reading" sentiment that 
Meredith Farkas mentioned could be extended a little further into the 
culture at large? Sadly, the uncharitable, not to say chippy, attitudes 
exhibited by some librarians because a corporate blog has been inactive 
seem to undercut the promise of that. Yes, Google, like any other 
business, BigCo or SmallCo, is in the "business of making money". But, as 
everyone (but for the dwindling remnant of Marxist--sorry, 
"anti-capitalist"--diehards) knows, they make that money precisely by 
providing social services/products. Which, as has been noticed, most of us 
are quite happy with. So here's an off-topic but interestingly 
"transgressive" thought for you--what if libraries could do a better job 
of providing social services if they too were in the business of making, 
as opposed to simply spending, money?
--LC    Jul 10, 02:30 PM

14. Libraries and Google still embody an element no other group on Earth 
can capture other than family. TRUST
  Safe for you firewall -both doing the best they can for you. Eventualy 
the Librarians will become Googalarians
--JRC    Jul 10, 02:57 PM

15. 
 and some of us just really missed the light up Google ice cubes they 
handed out at ALA one year 

--Martin    Jul 10, 04:28 PM

16. I find it difficult to see how the digitization and resulting broader 
ease of access to printed books can be anything but a broad social good. 
Google has a way (many ways, I'm sure) to make money out of it. Of course 
they do--they're not a foundation or a governmental organization, they're 
a "BigCo," in Stephen Cohen's phrasing. So what? Google's turning a profit 
on my reading a digitized full-text (and therefore, out-of-copyright) book 
I could not otherwise have instant access to doesn't harm anyone I can 
think of. Some libraries (such as my own--though I make no pretense of 
speaking for the University of Michigan library) are actively determining 
the copyright status of books published between 1923 and 1963 and opening 
full-text access to those determined to be out of copyright. Those in the 
public domain are available through our own (i.e., not Google's) web site, 
with no advertising or profit center for the BigCo. See 
http://scholarlypublishing.org/jpwilkin/archives/13 for a fuller 
description of the Michigan project.--Ken Varnum    Jul 10, 04:50 PM

17. Meredith: My comments were not a swipe at librarians. They are a swipe 
at research libraries which have Provosts or Vice Provosts for lead 
administrators, and non-faculty librarians on the staff. It's ignorance to 
ignore that distinction.--Al    Jul 10, 04:58 PM

18. I am having a hard time figuring out the issue of concern? What is 
Google suppose to be doing with librarians that they are not doing?
--Kyle David    Jul 10, 04:59 PM

19. This doesn't surprise me. This fits a pattern of Google's method of 
management, which is based on the enthusiasm of specific employees and 
teams. When a group of employees is excited about a project, it moves 
forward quickly. When they lose interest, it is dropped just as quickly. I 
formerly worked for an organization that had a very similar experience. 
Google approached us, very excited about adding some of our data to their 
search tools. It went swimmingly for a few months, and then it was 
suddenly, quietly dropped on their end. Google makes wonderful products, 
but librarians (and the rest of us) should be very hesitant about trusting 
them with longterm, "boring" projects like archiving.--Mike    Jul 10, 
05:14 PM

20. I promise I am not trying to be obtuse, I really do not understand 
what it is that Google did? Was there a contract they had with ALA they 
did not honor? Were they working with librarians on scanning and did not 
do what they were suppose to be doing? I am just trying to understand what 
they did wrong. Thanks
--Kyle David    Jul 10, 05:43 PM

21. I don't hear anyone mentioning that Microsoft wasn't there either – 
and they had a presence at both annual and midwinter for a few years. Why 
no angst over their sudden disappearance from the conference, not to 
mention that MSFT completely pulled the rug out from under their library 
partners when they ditched the book digitization project. Bottom line 
folks – these are corporate entities we are partnering with and they are 
beholden to their shareholders – not librarians. So I don't know why 
Google's not-so-sudden lack of interest in librarians is such a big deal. 
Are we now shocked that Google was faking its supposed interest in being 
our friend. Was their presence at ALA or their "librarian-friendly web 
center" anything more than a hollow effort at outreach – or to win us over 
with the cheap toys and t-shirts they gave away at their conference booth 
– and for which librarians sadly lined up and played mindless games. If 
you're a librarian and you couldn't detect that Google's "librarian video" 
campaign was an outright effort to buy and sell our integrity, you deserve 
what you got – if you now feel bought and sold. This all seems old hat. I 
tried to tell you this two years ago. See: 
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365198.html?q=infomercial
--stevenb    Jul 10, 08:53 PM

22. Like many others here, I had noted Google's recent lower level of 
activity with their library communication channels, going back several 
months, though it seems that with ALA over the interest was suddenly 
heightened and has now spread through blogs and email lists alike. I 
suppose I am as curious as anyone else as to the reason behind Google's 
decreased communication of late. Some have suggested that Google had a 
contract or at least a gentleman's agreement with the library industry as 
a whole, even that the libraries that partnered with Google have an 
obligation, along with Google, to explain themselves to all the rest of 
the libraries out there. I wonder why the Google partners would have an 
"obligation" to the "rest of us", and what exactly that obligation would 
be? To explain the communication strategy of a company that they have 
partnered with? Did anyone demand for DRA or their library partners to 
explain themselves when they inexplicably killed TAOS after "suckering" 
all those trusting pilot libraries with their promise of a brave new world 
for the library ILS? What ever happened to Corinthian? How about any other 
number of vendors who were full of promises on some product or another and 
all at once decided to call it a day? Microsoft for its part summarily 
executed Live Book Search with barely a whimper, as stevenb notes. As far 
as I can see all of the services that Google offers and has offered to 
libraries are still up and fully functional, including the release in the 
last couple of months of an API into Google Book Search that could not 
possibly have been meant for too anyone else but libraries, and 
sponsorship of a number of open source projects directly or indirectly 
related to libraries under the umbrella of Google Summer of Code, not to 
mention millions of books digitized (and counting) freely available 
online, as well as archived with the library partners. And for what they 
have produced for libraries, Google has never received a cent of library 
money. So I wonder at the purpose of demanding anything, much less a 
formal explanation, from our good colleagues? There are at least half a 
dozen reasons why Google may have backed off in recent months, and not all 
of them begin with a staff meeting at Google that starts "Let's really 
stick it to these librarian ho-hums and dump them in the cold now that 
we've bled them dry."
  There is something that smacks of paradox in the collective response that 
has come in the wake of the initial observations (that Google Librarian 
Central had not been updated in a while, that Google was not at ALA). On 
the one hand there is a group identification with the partner libraries so 
strong that we all felt Google's contract, their committed relationship, 
was with the entire library industry, and by not showing up to the ball, 
they have broken faith with us all. On the other hand there is a 
remarkable condescension to the partners, that they made an 
extraordinarily naive and ill-informed decision and should have known they 
would get sucker-punched (a sentiment that, by the way, goes all the way 
back to when the project was first announced, and those who said so at the 
time are getting a second wind today). All this, despite the fact that 
Google's contracts, as far as we know, hold good with the partners, 
digitization continues, and the Book Search blog remains as active as 
ever
Google Book Search doesn't look like its going anywhere. I would note 
that assumptions about motivations and intentions aside, this is now, and 
always has been, a fair deal on both sides. Google received a huge amount 
of information to add to its index and increase the value of its 
properties. The libraries were launched hundreds of years forward (by some 
estimates) in their digitization and R&D efforts in only a few years. And 
they paid nothing for it, except in the court of opinion of their own 
colleagues. I have never met a member of the general public who felt the 
Google Library project was anything short of stupendous. How long has it 
been since libraries were so elevated in the popular consciousness?
  As for whether or not librarians clumsily fell for bright shiny things at 
Annual conferences, there is little to say. Google staff themselves were 
caught off guard by how much swag librarians could consume in very little 
time, more than other conventions they had attended. The first ALA they 
were at, they ran out of knick knacks Saturday morning. At their biggest 
conference presence (the much noted t-shirts and hats, etc), they ran out 
by Sunday afternoon. It is safe to say, I think, that in visiting our 
culture, they were doing their best to fit in with what we were telling 
them was important to us when we gather and commiserate—lots of swag. As 
for silly games, I suppose we easily forget the ostentatious wheel of 
fortune at the DEMCO booth, and the half hour wait to give it a spin. I 
hesitate to say it too many times, but Google never sold us anything. They 
came to our party, got into the swing of things, and joined us in having 
some fun. They also threw some of the best parties ALA has ever seen. My 
take: we're even. Well met, Google, and well played.--Maurice York    Jul 
11, 12:24 AM

23. Interesting discussion. The central question here is trust, without a 
doubt. Libraries are trusting Google to digitize books (and hence, create 
a new Google-owned asset – the Google index of such content). In the 
process of creating that Google-owned index, it is making digital copies 
of content it doesn't own, exploiting the fair use law. As long as Google 
is friendly and open, and as long as our Justice Department doesn't forget 
who owns the content (the ones who hold the copyrights), then Google's 
Library project makes sense to everyone. But in a world where the recent 
FISA bill has put into question the core rights of Americans regarding 
information privacy, shouldn't we get a little nervous about the 
possibilty that Google will one day break trust with the book industry? 
And that our government (and we, the people) will let them do it?
  The problem is, the deal is already done now. It will be a lot harder to 
stop this locomotive if it breaks trust now than to have done so by 
designing the compact between Google and the GL partners in the beginning. 
And those GL partners may one day find that a less beneficient, more 
powerful and megalomaniacal Google will have used them as patsies to 
undermine the ownership rights of copyright holders. With this done, 
Google will have shifted the control of an industry in their 
direction--one that may or may not serve the public good as much as we 
feel Google does today. That is what makes me nervous. Not what Google has 
done, but what they might choose to do if trust disappears.--Bill    Jul 
11, 06:49 AM

24. Lost in this discussion is any reference to the fact that copyrighted 
materials have also found themselves enshrined in Googles' database. 
Unless someone can demonstrate that this is not so, I would have to think 
that copyright owners, thus violated, have more to complain about than do 
librarians. Jim Black
--James W. Black    Jul 11, 09:11 AM

25. All of this misses the point that we are a dying profession. And we're 
dying NOT because of Google, but because we insist on retaining the 
paradigms (yes, I hate that word, too) of the past. I'm 61. Get off your 
duffs, librarians. What we know about how reliable information is produced 
is being lost. This generation chooses what it WANTS to know, not what it 
NEEDS to know. We're not chumps.We're anachronisms. And it's our fault. Go 
Google. Give them what they want. Meanwhile, we discuss OPAC's and 
metadata. ACK!
--linda bartnik    Jul 11, 09:39 AM

26. Yes, I also noticed that Google was not present at ALA this year. I 
thought it was strange
--Madlibrarian    Jul 11, 09:41 AM

27. Exploitation is the word to remember in capitalistic society; their 
only goal is to make money—it doesn't matter how or whose feelings are 
hurt. I am surprised Americans don't know about it. Welcome to the world 
of capitalism!!!
--Sam    Jul 11, 09:52 AM

28. We didn't go into the Google project so we could schmooze with them at 
ALA or be flattered with attention from their blogs. It was so that users 
everywhere could have full access to a big chunk of our collection, with 
the promise of further access as copyrights expire. Hard to see the down 
side of that. While it's not quite fair to say we haven't paid 
anything--we've paid a lot in staff time and logistics--we're getting ROI 
not only in terms of the immediate public access, but also the long-term 
benefit of having a copy of all of the content, so we can continue to 
provide access even if Google pulls the plug tomorrow.--Peter Gorman 
Jul 11, 10:13 AM

29. Forgive me, for I feel the need to google myself. I love my profession 
and I am proud to be a googlebrian! I will never regret I went to google 
school and earned my Master's degree in google Science! Let us show that 
we can google! Why study when you can surf? Why do research when you can 
google at the local googlebrary? Oh, research & libraries! Such dull 
boring words! Just hearing them is like a kick in the opac! I'm a free 
spirit set free to google! And since I'm so young at heart, don't call me 
a googlebrarian, I will be called a gigglebrarian! YAHOO!! :-)
--ech    Jul 11, 10:26 AM

30. yes, google is doing such a public service; rather than a book it will 
be giving up a book with advertising; great product and retooling of the 
book; just what I wanted more advertising in the one place left on earth I 
could be alone, ponder, reflect and ruminate; good work gigglebarians and 
university "leaders."
--vinnie    Jul 11, 11:18 AM

31. Kyle B.,
  Every year librarians have a huge annual conference called ALA. The past 
few years Google has attended this conference and ALA rolled out the red 
carpet. Google reps made lots of attempts to say how important librarians 
were. What this blog entry is about is the fact that at the recent ALA 
convention, Google did not send any reps or put up a booth. Some people 
are upset, others are not. For some this no-show was a surprise, while 
others say it was expected. This is relevant to a broader cultural debate 
about what role Google does and should play as an information provider vs. 
what role libraries play.--April Y.    Jul 11, 11:52 AM

32. With this valuable library book digitizing, Google is finally 
fulfilling the dream of OCLC's late founder, Fred Kilgour, to have 
electronic searchability (and findability) for keywords in the world's 
collection of nonfiction book titles. In order to gain quality, universal, 
& free Internet access for everyone in the reading community who's 
interested, some major company, and it's Google in this case, would have 
to do an efficient job of scanning and indexing them all. The alternative 
is not to have this access, because putting the government on the case 
would be slow and inefficent – if it got done at all. You go, Google!
--NL    Jul 11, 11:57 AM

33. Just this afternoon I got an e-mail message announcing the 
availability of a new issue of the Google Librarian Central newsletter on 
their website. It touches lightly on the reasons for their silence and 
then talks about some of their latest endeavors.--Peter Murray    Jul 11, 
02:44 PM

34. Just a note that while Google might have missed ALA, they've been very 
busy in the last year working on great new features with OCLC, regarding 
linking between Open WorldCat and GBS. I think this is a much better use 
of Google staff time than hanging around the ALA conference, and serves 
the library profession and its patrons far better too.--Melissa B    Jul 
11, 08:09 PM

35. Al, you attribute libraries signing up with Google to poor leadership 
in the libraries. Notably, you suggest that "few or none" of those in 
charge were "faculty librarians," by which I think you mean professional 
librarians. You then point to the following URL:
  http://books.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html. So, let's look at the 
list. The only U.S. institutions on the list that were not led by 
professional librarians when the deals were made with Google are Harvard 
(and it's hard to characterize Sid Verba as anything BUT a faculty 
librarian), and two consortia--the University of California Digital 
Library and the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, which is the Big 
Ten plus UIC plus the University of Chigago. But wait, almost all of the 
UC schools have libraries run by librarians or by faculty (indeed there 
may be no exceptions) and all of the CIC libraries do, too. Trust me that 
neither institution makes decisions of this kind without the individual 
schools being on board. Thus, you say "few or none" when the data support 
a characterization of "all or almost all."
  Counting is an important skill, for faculty, for librarians, for faculty 
librarians, and even for those who make quasi-anonymous posts on blogs. 
Among the people who you seem to be calling out for failures of 
librarianship are Karin Wittenborg, Fred Heath, Mike Keller, Karen 
Trainer, Anne Kenney, David Ferriero and Jim Neal. That's pretty good 
company. Regarding the broader questions about libraries and Google 
discussed in this thread, I have commented (and been commented upon) at 
some length on my blog at 
http://paulcourant.net/2007/11/04/on-being-in-bed-with-google/
--Paul Courant    Jul 12, 08:53 AM