Article 1. As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. Article 4. The defense of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity. Article 6. While ensuring the free flow of ideas by word and image, care should be exercised that all cultures can express themselves and make themselves known. Ian Wilson Page x
Dominance by US literature, Google Book Search is still in early beta., They have to start somewhere, English seems like a logical starting point., They have enough trouble with US copyright laws. Just recently recovered from American Association of Publishers. It would be irrational to start digitizing books in other countries when they have enough trouble dealing with local laws., Had the project been created by a French company, the first works would undoubtedly be in French.
For him the issue is not just the whole work but also the cultural context and language in which the work was conceived, written, published, read, understood, and maintained. Information has many contexts and receives its full meaning within these contexts and receives its full meaning within these contexts. How a search engines selects, organizes, and presents information can destroy or invisibly distort the context. The complex cultural nuances are forced into molds and structures built by and appropriate to one dominant cultural perspective. And if that cultural perspective also determines what portion of the world’s recorded knowledge is digitized and available for search on the Web, the possibilities of distortion escalate. Ian Wilson Page viii
In the world of the Web, should one entity dominate all aspects of content from selection to digitization, access, and preservation? And if it is sold next year, what could a new, less benign owner do with such a colossus? I would trust neither the public nor the private sector with such power. A division of powers, roles and responsibilities, based upon tested professional principles and respecting the imperative both of cultural diversity and of the marketplace, may be the best approach for the long term. We need balance and well-planned partnerships to achieve the real promise of the digital commons. Ian Wilson Page xiii
Government-run libraries and archives are chronically underfunded.
No political power without archive, Democracy is measured by how much access people have to the archive.
Partnership between private and public
Blames Google for catering to the "consumers" rather than interests of the "citizens."
Microsoft's Live Search Books shut down in May of 2008., But they did transfer all their digitized books to a non-profit organization Internet Archive (archive.org)
Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor at the University of Virginia, argues that "[p]ublic institutions ... should not be making these sorts of deals with private companies, especially when those companies are as dominant in their fields as Google is.
In challenging Google’s claim that it will “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” Jeanneney, like Michael Gorman, past president of the American Library Association, notes the distinction between accessing knowledge and merely retrieving a few pages from a major book without the context of the whole. Ian Wilson Page viii
So we must wonder what books will be chosen, what criteria will determine the list. Page 5
As for access, it must be widely available to all engines, according to modalities yet to be defined – unlike Google, which unabashedly reserves for itself the exclusivity of its offer. Page. 15
New technology and public expectation for online access, whether driven by Google, Yahoo, or the next new search engine, highlight the limitations of traditional practices. Google, forcefully representing the impatience of the marketplace, is driving the urgency of discussion and the necessity of action. Jean-Noel Jeanneney Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge Page xi
public access online to such publicly owned resources will remain free; information providers may develop and charge for value-added features, but the source material should be accessible and free. agreements with private-sector partners to publish or digitize significant collections will be nonexclusive in nature the digital images will be prepared to a suitable preservation standard and maintained in the public sector with a commitment to a long-term preservation and accessibility. the integrity and authenticity of the original source material will be maintained and cannot be altered in the online environment as far as possible, online access will be multilingual and multicultural as appropriate for the source material. Jean-Noel Jeanneney Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge Page xii
no altering of media
Limiting the number of copies that can be checked out.
Trying to save the paperbacks and the old school book stores
this program, which will make millions of books easier for everyone in the world to find, is crucial to our company's mission. We're dedicated to helping the world find information, and there's too much information in books that cannot yet be found online. We think you should be able to search through every word of every book ever written, and come away with a list of relevant books to buy or find at your local library.
But just as any Web site owner who doesn't want to be included in our main search index is welcome to exclude pages from his site, copyright-holders are free to send us a list of titles that they don't want included in the Google Print index.
Imagine sitting at your computer and, in less than a second, searching the full text of every book ever written. Imagine an historian being able to instantly find every book that mentions the Battle of Algiers. Imagine a high school student in Bangladesh discovering an out-of-print author held only in a library in Ann Arbor. Imagine one giant electronic card catalog that makes all the world's books discoverable with just a few keystrokes by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
It's a clear victory for writers and publishers, and should serve as a wake-up call to Google that even though a company is built on new technology, it still sometimes has to play by the old rules.
We have the utmost respect for the intellectual and creative effort that lies behind every grant of copyright. Copyright law, however, is all about which uses require permission and which don't; and we believe (and have structured Google Print to ensure) that the use we make of books we scan through the Library Project is consistent with the Copyright Act, whose "fair use" balancing of the rights of copyright-holders with the public benefits of free expression and innovation allows a wide range of activity, from book quotations in reviews to parodies of pop songs -- all without copyright-holder permission. Even those critics who understand that copyright law is not absolute argue that making a full copy of a given work, even just to index it, can never constitute fair use. If this were so, you wouldn't be able to record a TV show to watch it later or use a search engine that indexes billions of Web pages. The aim of the Copyright Act is to protect and enhance the value of creative works in order to encourage more of them -- in this case, to ensure that authors write and publishers publish. We find it difficult to believe that authors will stop writing books because Google Print makes them easier to find, or that publishers will stop selling books because Google Print might increase their sales.
Eric's argument, although a good one, may not be so strong because his examples of recording a TV show or indexing a web page are both saving digital copy of an already digital work. With books it's moving from analog, tangible, physical to digital.
Google limits the number of viewable pages and attempts to prevent page printing and text copying of material under copyright.
"Digital age equivalent" of a card catalog with all the words indexed.
The University of Michigan's head librarian, Paul Courant agrees
When Cardinal Ratzinger became pope, millions of people who searched his name saw the Google Print listing for his book "In the Beginning" (Wm. B. Eerdmans) in their results. Thousands of them looked at a page or two from the book; clicks on the title's "Buy this Book" links increased tenfold.
This egalitarianism of information dispersal is precisely what the Web is best at; precisely what leads to powerful new business models for the creative community; precisely what copyright law is ultimately intended to support; and, together with our partners, precisely what we hope, and expect, to accomplish with Google Print.
One centralized location
Google has the best search engine - would make finding books easier.