Yes, to me, absolute statements are the dividing issue…that, and what feels to me like a tendency to assume the worst. And maybe I’m overreacting to Dr. Vaidhyanathan’s commentaries and attitudes at this point because I have a lot of respect for what he’s said and done in the past.

In these cases, I don’t hear questioning, and maybe that’s a tin ear on my part. I hear absolute assertions–that all case law is against Google, that the Google Library Project is a “horrible” deal for librarians, that there should be no library digitizing projects that aren’t actually done by libraries themselves…

I agree that questioning the implications of library decisions is important and necessary. I do it myself (within the admitted confines of discretion regarding the 160-odd libraries I work for indirectly). What I’ve been reading felt more like attacking than questioning. But, again, that could be me.

Librarians disagree, too, from what I’ve seen… I’m not a librarian, but I’ve got an MLIS and I’m on the Copyright Advisory Network team for ALA with several librarians, membes of the ALA subcommittee on copyright, and people from ALA’s OITP (who are great). The librarians represented there don’t seem to have a unified opinion on the Google project as far as the copyright issues. I came in thinking that librarians were generally supportive of the project in its copyright context (my views are pretty similar to the OITP analysis/statements), but as it turns out it wasn’t that easy to generalize (at least with that group, and supposedly others in ALA administration)… It’s hard for me to get a feel for even that group, though, since the people who were vocal on the mailing list/forums aren’t necessarily representative. ^^;

I do agree with Siva that the libraries are doing more than lending books- although that does lead me to ask, what if Google actually was borrowing books and digitizing them on it’s own… would that change things?

Anyway- I do read both Sivacracy and Cites & Insights, and I find both valuable. It disturbs me that these discussions have gotten rather personal, when both sites do really have quite a bit to offer to the same groups of readers. If absolute statements are the dividing issue, then I would think there could be a better way of commenting/discussing…

OK, I’ll apologize for comparing you to Gale Norton.

And maybe “zealot” is too strong a word, but you’ve become an extremist in this particular area.

I believe I’ve quoted you correctly. You’ve made absolute statements regarding law and library practice that disagree with lawyers and librarians.

If you said, “In my opinion, the balance of case law argues against the Google Library Project being fair use,” I have no argument with that–it’s your opinion. When you say case law is totally against Google, you’re setting yourself up as more knowledgeable than a number of experienced copyright lawyers.

Similarly, your stridency regarding the Google Library Project sets yourself up as more knowledgeable than the directors of the Google 5, at least as I read your posts.

I’ve mentioned facts and arguments that would differ with your position, not only in this issue of C&I but in previous ones. I started out believing that Google’s fair use case was weak; the more I’ve read from sources I trust, the more I believe that it is fair use–and that Google’s willingness to stand up for fair use is important, as avoiding fair use cases leads to the death of fair use.

Of course it’s your job to call ‘em as you see ‘em. It’s when you make absolute statements–not “I believe” but “this is the case”–that I take issue with you, particularly because you have such a fine reputation.

I don’t regard Google as perfect (and have been consistently arguing that they need to be more transparent regarding the Google Library Project).

Sivacracy is in my Bloglines list, and I read it faithfully. If I called you a zealot regarding Google and Google Library Project, it’s because I find your recent posts and writings on the subject to smack of zealotry–and I find that surprising and unfortunate, since I’ve respected the work you were doing. I believe you’ve gone overboard on this topic.

NOTE: If your response is intended for a future issue of C&I, I need to know that.

I believe you owe me an apology.

I don’t “dismiss the knowledge” of either librarians or lawyers. I just disagree with the arguments and conclusions of those who support the Google library project. And there are plenty of librarians and lawyers who agree with me about the Google library thing.

What’s more, I don’t insult those who disagree with me by comparing them to corrupt Republican officials who are destroying our futures.

Finally, I am not a “zealot” for or against anything. I have opinions that I defend with arguments. I take positions and put myself out there for revision, correction, and criticism. I use Google and admire the company. As I have said and written many times, it may be the best media corporation in the world. That does not mean it does everything right all the time. I believe it’s my job to call a company on its excesses. Is that not proper? Is that not my job?

If you have any actualy facts or arguments you would like to take up against my position, I would welcome them.

If you would take the time to examine what I have posted and written, you would see that I always link to and respectfully quote those who defend Google’s library project and those who criticise my positions.

Does Gale Norton do that?

Carlos: I think you’re right on both counts. (GBS should be fair use; Google isn’t a library, and doesn’t claim to be.)

I’ll have to check out what you’re writing. I’m really surprised at the extent to which Siva has turned into an anti-Google zealot, and at the freedom with which he dismisses the knowledge of other professionals in other professions (that is, both librarians and lawyers). Maybe it’s a good thing I’m not in academia?

Update: I’ve added “copy this blog” to my Bloglines list. Thanks.

As to the anecdotal and first hand evidence:

I think it makes some sense for libraries to focus digitization efforts, not because Google’s doing it–it’s now clear that GLP doesn’t provide archival copies–but so that efforts make some programmatic sense. I would note that OCA appears to be doing focused digitization.

As for not joining OCA because Google is doing it: Well, that’s just sad.

I’m not surprised administrators are confused. Publishers are doing their best to confuse the situation (the big lie, repeated often enough, frequently masquerades as truth), and Google isn’t helping matters by being as opaque as they are.

You note, and I’ve agreed with you elsewhere, that we don’t have to stop Google to save libraries- they’re two different things, serving two different purposes. I really believe that.

A problem is that not all library admistrators are looking at it that way. Anecdotally I know of a few libraries that have stopped or slowed digitization efforts because of Google’s project, and I know first hand about at least one library that has slowed digitization and has not joined the Open Content Alliance “because Google is doing it already.” Some administrators seem very confused about the whole thing… That I find troubling.