> It is much easier to argue that Google has been a positive presence
> than a negative one. If Google really is that bad, we shouldn't use
> their products, just as we don't use most products created by most
> companies.
I agree that Google has so far been more of a positive influence than a negative one, primarily after they got all that money from their IPO and essentially "did the impossible" by scanning books, irrespective of the threats and so on, so that now we can actually think about when *everything* is digitized. This was fantasyland just a few years ago.
But we should not forget that Google is a corporation and therefore, can't be considered "good" or "bad" since it must do whatever is for the good of its shareholders. It can do nothing else. Of course, a company will go to great lengths to try to convince the public that they are doing things out of the goodness or their hearts, but the managers of the company cannot do truly altruistic things with stockholders' profits. If they do some of these things that appear to be "altruistic," it is only because they can justify the costs by saying the general public will have a better view of their corporation and therefore, they will make more money. There is nothing evil about this; it is just the way it works.
Obviously, Google did all of this from the beginning to make money, otherwise they could never have justified it. I don't know if they had this particular goal in mind, or they just realized that by scanning millions of books, it would give them enormous leverage that could be used in some way. And they have found a way.
Do I think libraries have gotten a raw deal out of this? Of course, but raw deals for libraries are nothing new. Lots and lots of small monasteries have allowed their priceless manuscripts to be scanned by rather unscrupulous agencies, who then sold access to the scans and the monastery got nothing, or almost nothing. It was the monastery that really needed the money but they didn't understand the issues at stake and others got the cash. So, in this case, libraries have had to pay once for acquiring the physical item, managing it for decades, and now they will have to pay to access it online.
Nothing new. I just hope it will be cheaper than interlibrary loan.
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Wed Mar 04 2009 - 05:01:39 EST