A few days ago, I wrote an article in somewhat "poetic" language (as it has been described) which placed commentaries on certain aspects of the Library / Google relationship. I have learned a couple of things from this post:  

One is that my attempt to soften (not weaken, soften) a message resulted in language which was instead used as a leaden mallet to suit the hands and intent of the wielder.  The second, related lesson is that there are a large number of actors who would not mind seeing Google lessened in the world.  Neither of these was my intent, and so let me be clearer on a few points:

1.  I think Google is a company to be admired.  For whatever weaknesses they possess, they have a grand vision and have superbly executed it, even at some risk to themselves (and it embodies both commercial and non-commercial vision).  Google is filled with a large number of supremely brilliant and nice people.  It has been my pleasure to become acquainted with many Google staff, managers and engineers (not that this is a non-intersecting set ... ), many of them before they set foot on the 'Plex, and many only as Googlers.

2.  I believe the Google Books effort is, in its broadest conception, a wonderful thing, and I support it wholeheartedly.  When this scale of mass digitization first emerged as a possibility, I wavered.  My opinion quickly settled on strong advocacy for the intellectual aims of the project, and I have been a consistent and solid proponent of it since before the time I was quoted in Kevin Kelley's article in the New York Times Magazine, "Scan this book!" 

3.  My primary intent in the post is to suggest disappointment with libraries (not with Google).  I felt that there was much to be gained -- and I still feel very strongly so -- from union, collaboration, and sharing among libraries of the immense issues raised by this effort.  There are some who feel that libraries have not worked together well on anything past traditional shared cataloging; I am not quite that pessimistic, but otoh, I think libraries (and universities generally) have absymally coordinated their activities, and failed to do so at times which were arguably critical for higher education's aims and goals.  

My charge is senstitive to several issues: libraries need to avoid certain types of coordinated action just like any other actors. Certainly early on in Google-Library negotiations, there was intense uncertainty and a complex and not yet settled swirling miasma of speculation about the actions of search engines, libraries, publishers, authors, the law, and opinion.  It is perhaps unfair for me to criticize deeply some of the decisions made then.  But nonetheless, the overall mantra: Libraries must collaborate amongst themselves - is a paramount one for me.   

I want to also acknowledge with sympathy the perspective that many publishers have that question why the library should receive any copy of a non-public domain work.  This is a valid debate, with many deep and profound questions about ownership, the nature of rights, and the ability to monetize commodities and actions.   However, I happen to represent libraries, not publishers. I have a bias, and it is my responsibility to reflect it as articulately as possible. 

Simply put: I wish (in hindsight) that libraries - both in the library program and without - had seized more initiative and not only recognized the earth-shaking change afoot, but grappled hard to be a fundamental and defining part of that conversation, by engaging directly with publishers (who should often be seen as intellectual compatriots and commercial partners, not adversaries), and by opening up discussion for ourselves and our publics on  critical issues of rights, privacy, and the nature of scholarship.  Some of these conversations have sprung up, largely within the library community, but I think that libraries have not been as much publicly engaged as they could have been, and I see this as a critical part of their role.  

4.  One of my comments in the earlier post suggested that I felt that discussions between Google and libraries could have proceeded along paths more open and straightforward.  I acknowledge that, and I rest with it, but I also want to observe that a conversation can be held over this issue. To some degree, the possibility of having that dialogue has opened, and I look forward to it.  I am also confident that this will be an open and honest conversation,  as a sharing of perspectives, aims, and understandings. 

5. I conclude by urging libraries: let us engage deeply in these issues, not only amongst ourselves, and search engines, but with publishers and authors.  Let us break open this dialogue to better understand among the cacophony of voices all of the richness of our different perspectives, and struggle through the differences more openly and straightforwardly.  Only through this is any emergent consensus possible.  The alternative is that new understandings will be imposed on us.  Let us instead build the house we shall live in, together.