The partner libraries obviously had some major leverage before the digitization contracts were signed...GBS could not have proceeded on the scale it has without large libraries giving Google access to their collections.
Back in 2004, perhaps the library partners were rather smitten with their attractive and wealthy suitor (Google). And once they caught a dose of "Google fever", maybe their prior abilities to drive hard bargains with vendors withered away.
Siva Vaidhyanathan, in his initial analysis of the Google settlement with publishers and authors, briefly discussed the role of the library partners in Google Book Search. The following excerpt offers an interesting perspective, from a non-librarian:
"My major criticisms of Google Book Seach (sic) have always concerned the actions of the university libraries that have participated in this program rather than Google itself...Libraries at public universities all over this country...have spent many billions of dollars collecting these books. Now they are just giving away access to one company that is cornering the market on on-line access. They did this without concern for user confidentiality, preservation, image quality, search prowess, metadata standards, or long-term sustainability. They chose the expedient way rather than the best way to build and extend their collections...I am sympathetic to the claim that something is better than nothing and sooner is better than later. But sympathy remains mere sympathy...we must reflect on how complicit some universities have been in centralizing and commercializing knowledge under a single corporate umbrella."
Bernie Sloan
Sora Associates
Bloomington, IN
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Karen Coyle <lists_at_KCOYLE.NET> wrote:
> From: Karen Coyle <lists_at_KCOYLE.NET>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Google Books, AAP Lawsuit, and Transparency
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:50 PM
> B.G. Sloan wrote:
> > The library partners do not seem to have played even
> an advisory role in the settlement. And if they were
> involved, they didn't do a very good job because ALA,
> ARL, and ACRL feel obliged to file an amicus curiae brief in
> the case, on behalf of the library community.
> >
>
> One of the big difficulties with this settlement (and
> probably with any class-action suit) is that all of the
> negotiation was done under NDA (non-disclosure agreement).
> There WERE folks involved from the Google partner libraries,
> but they can't talk about what was said or what
> influence they had, because they are bound by secrecy. We
> don't know for sure who they were, but we do know some
> names. All of the folks I've either talked to or heard
> speak on the topic say that the settlement is much better
> than it would have been (for libraries) without library
> participation. Exactly what would have been isn't
> currently knowable. (I don't know if the NDA expires at
> any point.)
>
> I do think that one of the big issues that we have is that
> libraries do not approach this settlement with any degree of
> unity. The participating libraries obviously have made
> decisions that aren't available to the rest of us, and
> will get benefits that other libraries will not get. The
> participating libraries are not representative of libraries
> as a whole (it's a handful and 1/2 of major research
> libraries). The public libraries are feeling very worried
> about the access that they will get and how they will manage
> it. (More about that in the various readings.) It looks like
> school libraries don't get anything at all. Because of
> the NDA, those negotiating for the library partners could
> not even discuss the issues with their colleagues. Tom
> Leonard of UC Berkeley said that this didn't follow the
> usual academic practice of discussion about major resources
> and institutional decisions.
>
> Some of the partner libraries are waxing VERY enthusiastic
> about the settlement terms. I think an interesting question
> is how someone like ARL can file an amicus brief and balance
> the interests of those few very key academic libraries and
> the rest of their membership.
>
> kc
>
> -- -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
Received on Tue Mar 03 2009 - 15:57:00 EST