Quoting Ed Jones <ejones_at_NU.EDU>:
> My understanding is that libraries that contract with Google to have
> books digitized are provided with copies of the digitized books, in
> part to address this very concern.
Now that the settlement has been denied by the judge, the status of
the digital copies isn't all that clear to me. For books under
copyright, the libraries were given copies ONLY if that could meet
certain criteria for secure storage. I do not know if every book is
now safely stored in HathiTrust, but that's an interesting question.
Based on the contracts that the libraries had with Google (some of
which pre-date the settlement, some of which were revised based on the
settlement and thus are now possibly in limbo), the library copy was
available to the libraries under specific contractual specifications.
The contracts have wording like: (this from the UVA contract)
"... University shall not display or otherwise use the University
Digital Copy except as expressly permitted in this Agreement."
So I don't think that we can assume that if GBS disappears that we
have a usable backup in the library digital copies.
kc
> In the end, the survival of Google Books will come down to whether
> there is a viable business model. But even if Google Books went away
> tomorrow, it wouldn't be the end of the world. The digitized books
> from library collections would survive elsewhere. For example, I'm
> sure the Hathi Trust would thrive in such an environment.
>
> The question of metadata is an interesting one, and I have to
> believe Google is accumulating a wealth of data on how people are
> navigating Google Books with the metadata they currently provide
> (such as it is). It would be fascinating to know what they're
> clicking on (and not clicking on) and where they're going (and once
> they get there, whether or not they're staying), if only to know
> what links people find useful and which ones they don't. Links are
> for use, as Ranganathan might have said.
>
> Ed Jones
> National University (San Diego, California)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:57 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Google can't be trusted with our books
>
> Here are some important comments in an article from the Guardian: Google
> can't be trusted with our books / Simon Barron. (Guardian online 26
> April 2011)
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/26/google-books-videos
>
> "Google announced last week that it would be deleting the content of the
> Google Videos archive. After a public outcry, it said it would work on
> saving all the video content and making it available elsewhere. In this
> instance, the public managed to change Google's mind and stopped the
> mass deletion of a unique digital archive but the situation raises
> concerns about data under Google's control, including the unique archive
> of Google Books."
>
> The author goes on to discuss some other points, including metadata. My
> own opinion is that these issues can and will be solved once Google can
> "monetize" its books project. As it stands now, it is just an expensive,
> interesting financial exploration.
>
> --
> James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
> First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules:
> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/.
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tue Apr 26 2011 - 13:56:16 EDT