On March 4, Peter Brantley wrote a blog post arguing that the University of California made a mistake to join the Google Library project. On March 9, he wrote a second post to clarify the first. (Thanks to ACRLblog.) Brantley is the director of strategic technology for academic information systems in the UC's Office of the President.
From the March 4 post:
Can we say it was a mistake? For it was a mistake.
The goal is undeniably grand, and good. The means have left much to be desired.
We poisoned our hand before we played it. We were approached singly, charmed in confidence, the stranger was beguiling, and we embraced. For the love of selfish confidence, we spoke neither our fortune nor our misgivings with our neighbors or our friends....
Can we say it? The deals are not fair. We were taken advantage of. We are asked to be grateful for something wondrous where we could have achieved more for ourselves and demanded more from others. We let this happen and we should not have. Now we must count on the beneficence of others. We need speak of the bitterness, laugh at our own stupidity, and move forward.
Let us re-write the rules for the future....
From the March 9 post:
...[L]et me be clearer on a few points:
1. I think Google is a company to be admired. For whatever weaknesses they possess, they have a grand vision and have superbly executed it, even at some risk to themselves (and it embodies both commercial and non-commercial vision)....
2. I believe the Google Books effort is, in its broadest conception, a wonderful thing, and I support it wholeheartedly....
3. My primary intent in the post is to suggest disappointment with libraries (not with Google). I felt that there was much to be gained -- and I still feel very strongly so -- from union, collaboration, and sharing among libraries of the immense issues raised by this effort....
Certainly early on in Google-Library negotiations, there was intense uncertainty and a complex and not yet settled swirling miasma of speculation about the actions of search engines, libraries, publishers, authors, the law, and opinion. It is perhaps unfair for me to criticize deeply some of the decisions made then. But nonetheless, the overall mantra: Libraries must collaborate amongst themselves - is a paramount one for me....
Simply put: I wish (in hindsight) that libraries - both in the library program and without - had seized more initiative and not only recognized the earth-shaking change afoot, but grappled hard to be a fundamental and defining part of that conversation, by engaging directly with publishers (who should often be seen as intellectual compatriots and commercial partners, not adversaries), and by opening up discussion for ourselves and our publics on critical issues of rights, privacy, and the nature of scholarship....
5. I conclude by urging libraries: let us engage deeply in these issues, not only amongst ourselves, and search engines, but with publishers and authors. Let us break open this dialogue to better understand among the cacophony of voices all of the richness of our different perspectives, and struggle through the differences more openly and straightforwardly. Only through this is any emergent consensus possible. The alternative is that new understandings will be imposed on us. Let us instead build the house we shall live in, together.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 3/19/2007 12:34:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
