Kyle Banerjee wrote:
> We claim dedication to openness, but as a profession we generally
> accept that it's OK to force librarians and others to withhold
> knowledge that would really help improve services or help colleagues
> make informed choices. Secrets govern contracts, system behavior,
> development plans, job references, salaries, and a bunch of other
> things that really affect what we can do. The very nature of secrets
> is that they benefit the informed at the expense of the uninformed.
>
Actually, it depends greatly on the nature of your institution. The
reason why we have access to some of the original GBS contracts is that
the public institutions must make those public if asked, and people
asked. If you ask for salary information for a state university, you can
get it. I've never had to sign an NDA regarding system behavior, and I
would greatly resist not being able to tell my users how a library
system works. Having talked with some folks who were involved, this was
an unusual level of secrecy to work under. However, much of that had to
do with the fact that this is not a normal negotiation -- this is a
class-action lawsuit, and as such it has its own rules. We have to
remember that this is not just Google making a deal, this is something
that will become LAW if the settlement is agreed on by the judge in June.
> In the case at hand, I wonder how much of the hubbub is just about
> "discomfort." We have a professional neurosis with certain
> organizations which makes us look harder for issues with them. For
> example, OCLC is also a favorite whipping boy despite the fact that
> it's a membership organization and we have mechanisms to apply
> pressure. Meanwhile, we give a free pass to other institutions that
> have demonstrated less accountability.
>
Most of the analysis about this settlement has nothing to do with
libraries, and isn't coming from the library field. The analysis comes
from the legal arena, and relates to intellectual property law. As such,
I recommend the writings of James Grimmelman, linked off of
http://wo.ala.org/gbs/. One of the key problems is that it creates a
monopoly for Google in relation to orphan works -- only Google, by law,
can scan them and make them available. In overall business terms, this
is a very bad idea. Fred von Lohmann of the EFF thinks that we need
legislation that would at least open up this deal for anyone who wants
to compete (including libraries themselves). The suit also is seen by
some as pre-empting copyright law in areas like section 108, where
libraries now have rights that they may not have once this suit passes.
So it's really not a question of comfort, but of an actual threat to the
balance we have now in law.
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 Wed Mar 04 2009 - 09:53:46 EST