Subject: [CODE4LIB] A Book Grab by Google

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:50:10 -0700

fyi - [the Google Book Settlement] "should not be approved"

A Book Grab by Google
by Brewster Kahle
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Washington Post | Opinions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051802637.html

/[email-masked]

---

From: Ethan Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:59:04 -0400

Google isn't a dumb company.  They knew this would be the result all along.
The real losers here are the libraries, especially the ones that funded the
packaging and transport of their materials to the Google scanning centers
(because Google didn't pay for that, fyi)  But hey, it looks good to be part
of such a prestigious group of libraries in partnering with Google to
deliver content freely* to the public!

*not free

Pardon my cynicism,
Ethan Gruber

---

From: Roy Tennant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:08:27 -0700

> deliver content freely* to the public!

I think that's an overly pessimistic assessment. There is a growing corpus
of freely available content being managed by the Hathi Trust[1], that
already numbers in the hundreds of thousands of volumes, and soon likely to
be over a million. Also, since government documents are included, there is a
surprising number of post-1923 public domain titles. So let's not rush to
throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Roy

[1] http://www.hathitrust.org/

---

From: Karen Coyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:14:11 -0700

> throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Roy, not sure what one has to do with the other. The Google settlement 
only relates to in-copyright, out-of-print works, so Google and Hathi 
Trust appear to be a null set.

kc

-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[email-masked] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:14:26 -0400

It's true that we have buns in the oven that are promissing.

But it's also worth noting that HathiTrust mainly came about via the 
Google partnership, and they have certain limitations on what they can 
do with their scans that came out of the Google partnership (the current 
vast majority), as a result of agreements with Google. For instance, 
they can _not_ bulk re-distribute the digitized scans, not even of 
public domain works. They also need to have security measures in place 
on their website to prevent other people from conveniently bulk 
downloading via scraping (notice how you can't download a complete PDF 
of even a public domain work from HathiTrust? )

But don't get me wrong, HathiTrust is a very important project, and 
under good stewardship.  It's not like all is lost or something, we're 
just at the _beginning_ of the history of the digitized book universe, 
not at the end. 

But I agree with Ethan that I hope that libraries in the future actually 
consider their own interests when making deals with for-profit third 
parties. Like, literally, take a moment to consider what your interests 
ARE, the first step before making sure they are protected by the 
contracts you sign. I get the feeling many libraries didn't even do that.

Jonathan

---

From: Eric Lease Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:24:34 -0400

On May 19, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Roy Tennant wrote:

>> But hey, it looks good to be part of such a prestigious
>> group of libraries in partnering with Google to
> ...I think that's an overly pessimistic assessment. There
> is a growing corpus of freely available content being
> managed by the Hathi Trust[1],...

> [1] http://www.hathitrust.org/

Yea, but but.

Yes, I do think Google is making a book grab, especially when it comes  
to orphan works, but on the other hand, the HathiTrust is not bed of  
roses either because even for public domain works it is not possible  
to download the whole book without going through semi-heroic efforts.

I applaud the Internet Archive and the Open Content Alliance's  
efforts.  archive.org++

BTW, we are sponsoring a mini-symposium on the topic of mass  
digitization here at Notre Dame, tomorrow:

   http://www.library.nd.edu/symposium/

-- 
Eric Lease Morgan
Hesburgh Libraries, University of Notre Dame

(574) 631-8604

---

From: Joe Atzberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:33:02 -0400

> BTW, we are sponsoring a mini-symposium on the topic of mass digitization
> here at Notre Dame, tomorrow:
>

Nice timing.

--joe

---

From: Tim Spalding <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:36:44 -0400

> here at Notre Dame, tomorrow:

Any protesters expected? ;)

T

---

From: Eric Lease Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:40:17 -0400

> I applaud the Internet Archive and the Open Content Alliance's

Try this hack with Google Books, not.

$ echo http://ia300206.us.archive.org/3/items/librariesreaders00fostuoft/ 
  > libraries.urls

$ echo http://ia310827.us.archive.org/0/items/developmentofchi00tancuoft/ 
  >> libraries.urls

$ echo http://ia310832.us.archive.org/2/items/rulesregulations00brituoft/ 
  >> libraries.urls

$ echo 'wget -erobots=off --wait 1 -np -m -nd -A  
_djvu.txt,.pdf,.gif,_marc.xml -R _bw.pdf -i $1' > mirror.sh

$ chmod +x mirror.sh

$ ./mirror.sh libraries.urls

-- 
ELM

---

From: raj kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:51:23 -0700

> $ ./mirror.sh libraries.urls

Here is a script that will let you download all the books from  
archive.org:

http://blog.openlibrary.org/2008/11/24/bulk-access-to-ocr-for-1-million-books/

You'll have to slightly modify it to download the format you want...

-raj

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:03:20 -0700

also, if your script can handle a redirect, you can use
our locator to find each item, e.g.

http://www.archive.org/download/librariesreaders00fostuoft/
http://www.archive.org/download/developmentofchi00tancuoft/
http://www.archive.org/download/rulesregulations00brituoft/

as the data does migrate occasionally for maintenance.

/[email-masked]

On 5/19/09 10:51 AM, raj kumar wrote:
>> $ echo 
>> http://ia300206.us.archive.org/3/items/librariesreaders00fostuoft/ > 
>> libraries.urls
>>
>> $ echo 
>> http://ia310827.us.archive.org/0/items/developmentofchi00tancuoft/ >> 
>> libraries.urls
>>
>> $ echo 
>> http://ia310832.us.archive.org/2/items/rulesregulations00brituoft/ >> 
>> libraries.urls
>>
> Here is a script that will let you download all the books from archive.org:
>

---

From: Eric Hellman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:19:56 -0400

Should note that Google could be paying $100,000,000+ to rights  
holders without getting ANYTHING in return in the absence of a  
settlement- that's what the copyright attorneys I've talked to believe  
would have been the ruling by the court had the suit gone to trial.  
And if that happened libraries would get nothing, not even the scans.  
I don't see how bashing Google (which is NOT what the library  
association briefs are doing, btw) for gaps in US and international  
Copyright Law(orphan works, for example) will end up helping libraries.

My blog at http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ is no longer secret.

Eric

---

From: Karen Coyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:54:50 -0700

> My blog at http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ is no longer secret.
Another important note is that the settlement is the collective desires 
of the entities representing rights holders (Author's Guild and Assn Am. 
Publishers) and Google. Because the settlement talks were done under 
NDA, we can only guess at which aspects of the settlement were 
proposed/championed by which participants. From the little bit that has 
been revealed by folks who were there (because they are still under NDA) 
the AAP had strong demands and was probably equal to Google, if not more 
so, in terms of its ability to carve out what it felt was the best deal. 
The settlement is a compromise, with everyone getting *some* of what 
they wanted, and no one getting *all*.

In answer to the question you pose on your blog: "The key question is 
this: Would the Book Rights Registry have the ability to authorize a 
Google competitor to copy and use "Orphan works"?" The legal folks I've 
heard speak about this say that the answer is "no." Only the court can 
authorize the copying and use of Orphan works outside of what copyright 
law already states, and this settlement waives liability under the law 
only for Google. The registry cannot change the legal status of Orphan 
works under the copyright law in a way that would permit copying of them 
as in-copyright works. The registry sets prices, so if someone else 
found a way to copy Orphan works legally (say, if we got orphan works 
legislation), the registry might be used by them as the middle-man for 
payments.

Most likely the registry would be used for non-Orphan works, because the 
rights holder could make a deal with the registry to give permission for 
copying, with $$ going to the registry and on to the rights holder. This 
is exactly what the Copyright Clearance Center does -- it serves as a 
central licensing agency for copyright holders. I assume that this is 
the area where the 'most favored nation' clause would be most likely to 
come into play -- basically, if Google Books is successful, rights 
holders might want to make deals with other entities for similar product 
lines.

Whether or not the suit itself would have gone against Google is a 
matter of debate. I've heard it both ways. Google folks state (and 
because they say this publicly it has to be considered at least 
partially a PR statement) that the lawsuit would have gone on for years 
(true), and they didn't want to wait that long to be able to know what 
they could and could not do with this project. That makes sense, but it 
also is possible that they weren't as sure that they'd win as they'd 
stated when they started the project.

kc

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:47:10 -0700

On 5/20/09 11:19 AM, Eric Hellman wrote:
 > I don't see how bashing Google (which is NOT what the
 > library association briefs are doing, btw) for gaps in US
 > and international Copyright Law(orphan works, for example)
 > will end up helping libraries.

i think the concern is that the settlement could give
_only_ Google the right to scan orphaned works, and no
one else. that certainly wouldn't help libraries.

/[email-masked]

---

From: Eric Lease Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:53:37 -0400

> one else. that certainly wouldn't help libraries.

Yes, that is what I am hearing too. Google has all but gotten the  
right to digitize orphan works to the exclusion of others like  
libraries or the Internet Archive.

-- 
Eric Morgan

---

From: Karen Coyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:23:13 -0700

> libraries or the Internet Archive.

Exactly. The Archive, actually the OCA, asked to be included in the 
settlement ("sue me, too! please, sue me!") because it, too, digitizes 
books. However, the judge denied the request, without providing any 
explanation.

kc

---

From: Eric Hellman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:31:34 -0400

But the argument being trotted out is that having orphan works  
available through Google would HURT libraries, which is a somewhat  
different discussion.

The arguments I see for that (as applied to libraries other than the  
internet Archive) are:
1. Asset devaluation. Just as DeBeers would be hurt if Google started  
selling cheap diamonds, because their stock of diamonds would be  
devalued, libraries would find their collections devalued.
2. Competition. Patrons would have attractive alternatives to visiting  
libraries to access information locked onto paper.

But let's imagine that Internet Archive was shoehorned into the  
settlement. How would these arguments change? Asset devaluation would  
presumably be worse as the price was driven down, and Libraries (other  
than IA) would be faced with more competition, not less. On the other  
hand, presumably libraries would gain more options in indexing and  
thus improved access to their collections.

Eric
http://hellman.net/eric/

---

From: Eric Hellman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:42:30 -0400

I think one thing in Karen's comment is incorrect. As far as I can  
tell, the 'most favored nation' clause does NOT apply in the situation  
that Karen assumes it "would be most likely to come into play". MFN  
appears to apply only if the registry licenses orphan works. It's an  
odd provision if you assume that the registry can't license orphan  
works; commentators such as Randy Picker have also commented on this  
oddness; as Karen mentions, it could be meant to come into play if  
orphan works legislation is enacted. You can examine the legalese  
yourself at
http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-google-really-get-orphan-monopoly.html

Eric

On May 20, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

>> settlement- that's what the copyright attorneys I've talked to  
>> believe would have been the ruling by the court had the suit gone  
>> to trial. And if that happened libraries would get nothing, not  
>> even the scans. I don't see how bashing Google (which is NOT what  
>> the library association briefs are doing, btw) for gaps in US and  
>> international Copyright Law(orphan works, for example) will end up  
>> helping libraries.
>>
> Another important note is that the settlement is the collective  
> desires of the entities representing rights holders (Author's Guild  
> and Assn Am. Publishers) and Google. Because the settlement talks  
> were done under NDA, we can only guess at which aspects of the  
> settlement were proposed/championed by which participants. From the  
> little bit that has been revealed by folks who were there (because  
> they are still under NDA) the AAP had strong demands and was  
> probably equal to Google, if not more so, in terms of its ability to  
> carve out what it felt was the best deal. The settlement is a  
> compromise, with everyone getting *some* of what they wanted, and no  
> one getting *all*.
>
> In answer to the question you pose on your blog: "The key question  
> is this: Would the Book Rights Registry have the ability to  
> authorize a Google competitor to copy and use "Orphan works"?" The  
> legal folks I've heard speak about this say that the answer is "no."  
> Only the court can authorize the copying and use of Orphan works  
> outside of what copyright law already states, and this settlement  
> waives liability under the law only for Google. The registry cannot  
> change the legal status of Orphan works under the copyright law in a  
> way that would permit copying of them as in-copyright works. The  
> registry sets prices, so if someone else found a way to copy Orphan  
> works legally (say, if we got orphan works legislation), the  
> registry might be used by them as the middle-man for payments.
>
> Most likely the registry would be used for non-Orphan works, because  
> the rights holder could make a deal with the registry to give  
> permission for copying, with $$ going to the registry and on to the  
> rights holder. This is exactly what the Copyright Clearance Center  
> does -- it serves as a central licensing agency for copyright  
> holders. I assume that this is the area where the 'most favored  
> nation' clause would be most likely to come into play -- basically,  
> if Google Books is successful, rights holders might want to make  
> deals with other entities for similar product lines.
>
> partially a PR statement) that the lawsuit would have gone on for  
> years (true), and they didn't want to wait that long to be able to  
> know what they could and could not do with this project. That makes  
> sense, but it also is possible that they weren't as sure that they'd  
> win as they'd stated when they started the project.
>
> kc
>
> --

---

From: Karen Coyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:07:36 -0700

Actually, one of the big concerns about Google having exclusive rights 
to the digitization of out-of-print works is the price that they will 
charge. At the meeting at ALA Washington that I went to, some of the 
librarians present wanted the price issue to be the main issue that 
libraries would bring up to the court. Here's how I imagine it going:

- digitized versions of millions of books become available, via Google
- some academic institutions subscribe to this service (say, Harvard, 
Stanford, a few others)
- to compete, other academic institutions must also subscribe, because 
their students and faculty will be less able to engage in research if 
they don't
- the subscription will come out of the library's budget
- without competition, Google (with the agreement of the registry, whose 
purpose is to garner as much income as possible for rights holders) will 
charge a price that is more than some institutions will be able to 
afford; others will subscribe, but to the detriment of other resource 
subscriptions.

That's basically what was being said, although in slightly different terms.

kc

---

From: Karen Coyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:14:38 -0700

Eric, can you cite a section for this? Because I haven't seen this 
interpretation elsewhere, and I don't read it in the section you cite, 
which doesn't seem to me to mention orphan works. I will point to 
Grimmelmann:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=james_grimmelmann*
pp 10-11.

Grimmelmann thinks that the monopoly on orphan works is what will give 
Google the edge that keeps away competition, but he doesn't interpret 
the MFN clause as relating only to orphan works.

kc
*
Eric Hellman wrote:
>>> believe would have been the ruling by the court had the suit gone to 
>>> trial. And if that happened libraries would get nothing, not even 
>>> the scans. I don't see how bashing Google (which is NOT what the 
>>> library association briefs are doing, btw) for gaps in US and 
>> they are still under NDA) the AAP had strong demands and was probably 
>> equal to Google, if not more so, in terms of its ability to carve out 
>> what it felt was the best deal. The settlement is a compromise, with 
>> everyone getting *some* of what they wanted, and no one getting *all*.
>>
>> Google competitor to copy and use "Orphan works"?" The legal folks 
>> I've heard speak about this say that the answer is "no." Only the 
>> court can authorize the copying and use of Orphan works outside of 
>> what copyright law already states, and this settlement waives 
>> liability under the law only for Google. The registry cannot change 
>> the legal status of Orphan works under the copyright law in a way 
>> that would permit copying of them as in-copyright works. The registry 
>> sets prices, so if someone else found a way to copy Orphan works 
>> legally (say, if we got orphan works legislation), the registry might 
>> be used by them as the middle-man for payments.
>>

---

From: Alexander Johannesen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:16:38 +1000

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:07, Karen Coyle <[email-masked]> wrote:
> charge a price that is more than some institutions will be able to afford;
> others will subscribe, but to the detriment of other resource subscriptions.

How is this different from what's already in place in terms of
electronic resources? This is not uniquely Google, nor has it even
been proven to happen.

Alex
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------

---

From: Karen Coyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:42:40 -0700

> electronic resources? This is not uniquely Google, nor has it even

Uh, can you say "Elsevier"? Elsevier raised journal prices by more than 
10% a year for many years, journals that academic institutions felt that 
had to have because they were the leading journals in the field. Library 
budgets became severely strained, and purchasing power dropped 
dramatically. This has led to something of a rebellion, but not before 
the damage was done.

http://senate.ucsc.edu/col/res.1405.pdf
http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/cdc/valuebasedprices.pdf

No, it's not uniquely Google, but adding another price pressure point to 
libraries is still seen as detrimental.

kc

---

From: Eric Hellman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 20:58:42 -0400

The "oddness" was remarked upon in Randy picker's talk at the Columbia  
conference on the Google Book Search Settlement. "orphan works" is not  
a term that occurs in the settlement agreement. "Rightsholders other  
than Registered Rightsholders" are orphan parents.

Careful commentators refer to the "initial monopoly" on orphan works  
created by the settlement agreement, becasue we don't know what will  
happen down the road.

On May 20, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

> interpretation elsewhere, and I don't read it in the section you  
> cite, which doesn't seem to me to mention orphan works. I will point  
> to Grimmelmann:
> Grimmelmann thinks that the monopoly on orphan works is what will  
> give Google the edge that keeps away competition, but he doesn't  
> interpret the MFN clause as relating only to orphan works.
>
> kc
> *
> Eric Hellman wrote:
>> tell, the 'most favored nation' clause does NOT apply in the  
>> situation that Karen assumes it "would be most likely to come into  
>> play". MFN appears to apply only if the registry licenses orphan  
>> works. It's an odd provision if you assume that the registry can't  
>> license orphan works; commentators such as Randy Picker have also  
>> commented on this oddness; as Karen mentions, it could be meant to  
>> come into play if orphan works legislation is enacted. You can  
>> examine the legalese yourself at
>>>> international Copyright Law(orphan works, for example) will end  
>>>> up helping libraries.
>>>>
>>> desires of the entities representing rights holders (Author's  
>>> Guild and Assn Am. Publishers) and Google. Because the settlement  
>>> talks were done under NDA, we can only guess at which aspects of  
>>> the settlement were proposed/championed by which participants.  
>>> From the little bit that has been revealed by folks who were there  
>>> (because they are still under NDA) the AAP had strong demands and  
>>> was probably equal to Google, if not more so, in terms of its  
>>> ability to carve out what it felt was the best deal. The  
>>> settlement is a compromise, with everyone getting *some* of what  
>>> legal folks I've heard speak about this say that the answer is  
>>> "no." Only the court can authorize the copying and use of Orphan  
>>> works outside of what copyright law already states, and this  
>>> settlement waives liability under the law only for Google. The  
>>> registry cannot change the legal status of Orphan works under the  
>>> copyright law in a way that would permit copying of them as in- 
>>> copyright works. The registry sets prices, so if someone else  
>>> found a way to copy Orphan works legally (say, if we got orphan  
>>> works legislation), the registry might be used by them as the  
>>> middle-man for payments.
>>>
>>> Most likely the registry would be used for non-Orphan works,  
>>> because the rights holder could make a deal with the registry to  
>>> give permission for copying, with $$ going to the registry and on  
>>> to the rights holder. This is exactly what the Copyright Clearance  
>>> Center does -- it serves as a central licensing agency for  
>>> copyright holders. I assume that this is the area where the 'most  
>>> favored nation' clause would be most likely to come into play --  
>>> basically, if Google Books is successful, rights holders might  
>>> want to make deals with other entities for similar product lines.
>>>
>>> know what they could and could not do with this project. That  
>>> makes sense, but it also is possible that they weren't as sure  
>>> that they'd win as they'd stated when they started the project.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>

---

From: Godmar Back <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 23:01:58 -0400

> libraries is still seen as detrimental.

I'm sure you saw:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/technology/companies/21google.html

"The new agreement, which Google hopes other libraries will endorse,
lets the University of Michigan object if it thinks the prices Google
charges libraries for access to its digital collection are too high, a
major concern of some librarians. Any pricing dispute would be
resolved through arbitration."

 - Godmar

---

From: Mike Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 11:08:49 +0100

Karen Coyle writes:
 > > electronic resources? This is not uniquely Google, nor has it
 > > even been proven to happen.
 > 
 > Uh, can you say "Elsevier"? Elsevier raised journal prices by more
 > than 10% a year for many years, journals that academic institutions
 > felt that had to have because they were the leading journals in the
 > field. Library budgets became severely strained, and purchasing
 > power dropped dramatically. This has led to something of a
 > rebellion, but not before the damage was done.

Very true ... but the situation with Google is potentially much worse,
because Elsevier is increasingly being bypassed by academics who want
their work to be widely read: I know that plenty of people in my own
field (palaeontology) have stopped or at least greatly decreased their
submissions to Elsevier-owned journals.  In the case of academic
journals, the content providers (i.e. authors) are free to take their
work elsewhere, and are doing just that [so sell your shares in
Elsevier].  But there is a finite pool of orphan works which, if
Google really does have exclusive right to them, can be monopolised
indefinitely.

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <[email-masked]>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  Orthogonality uber alles!

---

From: Kyle Banerjee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:19:06 -0700

> Actually, one of the big concerns about Google having exclusive rights to
> the digitization of out-of-print works is the price that they will charge.

One of the things I've found interesting about this discussion is the
presumption of the value in these materials. Just as selection and
presentation are the what distinguish a museum from a landfill -- both
are essentially collections of old junk -- the value that libraries
contribute is in how they select and present relevant information.

Mass digitization of orphaned and out of copyright works may prove to
have little value. People find ways to exert ownership over stuff
that's actually worth having, and good ideas have a way of working
their way through the information fabric. I'll bet money that lots of
the stuff that Google has digitized either has or should have been
weeded by many libraries even if there are a few gems in the mix. We
may as well presume that all the web pages created in the mid 90's are
highly valuable and deserving of meticulous curation. Polluting search
results with junk hides the good stuff and is ultimately a disservice.

 On the NGC4LIB list today, a link to a study that questioned the long
tail phenomenon appeared
http://www.prsformusic.com/monline/research/Documents/The%20long%20tail%20of%20P2P%20v9.pdf
It raises legitimate questions as to whether making more information
available is necessarily a good thing

I don't know if music downloading behavior is analogous to the
information services that libraries provide, but the article is still
worth a read. Among other things the authors find that in P2P
networks, the tail might be long, but only a tiny percentage of
resources see much use in practice. Now that we're all into feedback
from users, it appears that the popular stuff gets even more popular
while the other stuff doesn't get noticed or used just like anything
that appears on page 113 of your google search results.

Maybe Google will convert guano into gold, maybe it won't. But if the
concern is over monopolistic behavior, privacy, money, and whatnot, it
should be over the vast majority of information resources that people
actually use. A bunch of old books can't be more than a tiny cut of
the action.

kyle

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Banerjee
Digital Services Program Manager
Orbis Cascade Alliance
[email-masked] / 503.999.9787