The topic of this blog posting's readings was copyright and privacy in libraries, particularly in regards to technology and the ways that new technology capabilities have challenged libraries and other organizations to develop new policies and in some cases, to try to stretch the limits.
In Siva Vaidhyanathan's article "The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright," it is clear that Vaidhyanathan fears for the ways that the GoogleBooks project will change the face of copyright law as we currently understand it. First, a quick summary of the Google Library Project: since 2003, Google has been making digital images of books which have been made accessible to them from academic and commercial publishers and keeping these images on their servers. Google then controls the access the Google user has to the book--for older, out of copyright materials, that often means that the reader can see much of the book, but for newer materials, the user is given a quick view of the book, and a link which takes them to retailers from whom they may purchase the book. Google has also struck a deal with several major English-speaking universities around the world--if the universities allow Google to digitize their collections, Google will in turn allow the universities access to the scanned images for free. Initially, there was fear that this project would be a boon to the publishing industry, but it turned out to not affect their sales much. However, the publishers still are concerned about Google taking a "free ride" on the materials and not paying for what they are scanning. The author begins her article by citing an article published in the New York Times Magazine by Kevin Kelly in which Kelly claims that Google will change the book-buying world completely, and he is not concerned for this--in fact, he sees it as a liberating thing, allowing more people better access to more information. Vaidhyanathan, however, sees it differently--what about copyright law? The author claims that Google is taking advantage of a system that is old and misunderstood and that what they are doing is threatening the law to its very core by stretching the notion of fair use. In fact, Vaidhyanathan compares the Google Library Project with Grokster, which was a music exchanging and downloading program which was found guilty of copyright infringement, and the author believes that the similarities between the two projects must be recognized and that if Grokster had to be punished, Google should be as well because they are facilitating almost identical enterprises. Vaidhyanathan makes it clear that he is not an enemy to Google and uses their products frequently, but believes that this project steps on the toes of libraries and violates copyright law. He gives us three reasons to worry about Google possibly taking over as a primary source of book-based information--privacy, privatization, and property.
Vaidhyanathan points out that Google is very good at retaining the information of its users (if you've ever used Gmail, you know that the ads that show up on your screen are selected specifically for you based on the emails you send and receive) and that we cannot trust Google to not give out that private information if subpoenaed for it, unlike the library, who will not give out that information (often in compliance with the ALA Code of Ethics and Bill of Rights). When it comes to privatization, he argues that "companies fail," but universities last. Google may be the top dog today, but maybe not tomorrow. Not only that, but Google is a business, and like businesses, they answer to stockholders, which can be dangerous and scary to the people most affected by any kind of change they decide to make. Not only that, but they do not have standardized metadata (unlike libraries) and thus lack quality control of their material, providing a less-than-adequate search function for the books. Property also is an issue--copyright law comes into question when considering the project. And not only that, but Vaidhyanathan argues that Google may not be the right provider of this service, saying that it should be one that the libraries of the world take under their wing and provide the right way. Overall, the author is afraid that Google is not the right medium for this project, that it violates copyright law and threatens to take away the protective aspects of the law if it is reconsidered, and that libraries are threatened by the new power that Google is showing and need to take a stand against it.
In a slightly different vein, Karen Coombs' article "Protecting User Privacy in the Age of Digital Libraries" hits a little closer to home. Coombs is the electronic services librarian at SUNY Cortland library and has been faced with the challenge of all SUNY's libraries moving to the same ILS, bringing up various privacy and protection issues that Coombs then goes on to discuss and confront in the article. Coombs gives some background on the privacy policies instated by the government as well as the ALA Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics policy, which many libraries take on as their own or adapt to their own needs. In light of the recent ILS migration of all SUNY libraries, Coombs takes a look for user privacy issues that they face and comes up with various methods of solving them. First, she prioritizes by making a list of the different functions of a library that rely on patron data, including circulation, collection development, and security. In light of these and several other library functions, she found that the user's Social Security number or birth date was not necessary to these functions. With the thought of "the more data you have, the more you have to protect," she recommends attempting to get rid of unnecessary data by looking for ways the data can be accessed, ensuring that it is protected well and that policies are in place and actions are taken, as well as deleting the unnecessary data. Coombs does this in the ILS, ILL, web sites, proxy servers, and public computers, finding ways to separate the user from the item that they requested, searched for, or otherwise would be connected to. This allows for the library to not keep the information on hand, thus not making them liable for court subpoenas and ensuring the user's total privacy, which is one responsibility of the library.
And truly, I think that it is this notion, the user's privacy, that should be taken into account in both of these issues--with Google, they have little to no responsibility to the user, and so may or may not turn over the dossiers of data they keep on each user to authorities. This is very different from the notion of what a library stands for, where privacy is one of the main concerns, and users can feel protected. Just look at what Coombs is doing to ensure the privacy of her users in coming up with detailed strategies and manipulations that allow users to feel completely safe in the areas that she and her team are able to control. To be honest, copyright is something which has always been confusing for me (as it seems to be for many others) and I wish that Vailhyanathan had put the copyright policies into a kind of "dummy" language, allowing me to better understand his point and argument. I also think it would be interesting to read a pro-Google Library Project article and compare the two.
Possible discussion questions-- As Google changes the book-world, do you think that their policies will have to change with it, reflecting a more library-like policy? Do you think that Google has the potential to make libraries as they are today defunct in our society? How does copyright and privacy fit into this notion?
Coombs, Karen A. (2005). "Protecting User Privacy in the Age of Digital Libraries." Computers in Libraries 25.6: 16-20.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2005). "The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright." (2005).
http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment