Public Interest Watch ("PIW") today warned Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of Michigan, and the New York Public Library against turning over their research collections to Google, Inc. for inclusion in its Internet databases. PIW demanded that each institution receive an iron-clad guarantee from Google that the full contents of its collections would be used in its entirety for public benefit and would remain completely uncensored. PIW Executive Director Lewis Fein commented, "Google stands to make a fortune from this partnership, but what's in it for the taxpayers who have subsidized these collections? And what business does a university or a library have in affiliating with an $84 billion for-profit company that openly and willingly censors data to protect its market share?" Researchers at Harvard University conducted a study that revealed that Google routinely censors its databases. Since 2004, Google has cooperated with the Chinese government to censor the data it allows Chinese consumers to see. In return, Google enjoys broad, lucrative access to the Chinese marketplace. Google also censors data in France and Germany and, in 2002, it blocked access to Internet sites critical of the Church of Scientology rather than face the expense and distraction of a potentially frivolous lawsuit. Fein noted, "All Google cares about is making a profit. Faced with the choice of defending free and open access to a book or manuscript, or censoring it to avoid conflict, controversy, or expense, Google has demonstrated that censorship is its preferred option."
Comment. On its web site, PIW describes its mission as "Keeping an eye on the self-appointed guardians of the public interest." OK. But PIW is another self-appointed guardian of the public interest, and it could use less caffeine. The PIW warning is an overreaction. I'm familiar with cases of Google capitulation to the Chinese government and the Church of Scientology and I join PIW in deploring them. But PIW cites no evidence that Google has censored passages from the books in the Library project. Moreover, PIW makes inconsistent recommendations about the risk of book censorship. Libraries can't both (1) withhold their books from Google indexing and (2) demand guarantees of uncensored indexing. PIW also seems unaware that Google's contract with the participating libraries gives the libraries a role in deciding what content Google will index (Par. 2.1) and the right to back out if Google's indexing doesn't live up to the agreed-upon guidelines (Par. 2.4).
Posted by
Peter Suber at 10/05/2005 11:13:00 AM.
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.
