Google Wants Your Soul – Next

If you were ever unsure whether or not Microsoft and Google are evil bastards, then you should absorb this little tidbit of news. A number of major research libraries just refused offers from both Google and Microsoft to scan their resources into computer databases. Out of the goodness of their hearts these two behemoths have been offering to scan these extensive and important resources for free – with stipulations that the material not be made available to other commercial search services. Many research libraries are instead signing with Open Content Alliance – a non-profit entity that makes such materials more broadly available to people.

Watch Big Brother Go

Unfortunately for us, much data has already been "leveraged" by Google including content and data from; The New York Public Library , The University of Michigan , Harvard , Stanford and Oxford . Think of the value added to Google in gaining a level of exclusivity to this material. These libraries can have their resources scanned by other companies and organizations, but other search entities will effectively be cut off from this material. This is significant in that developing search entities and future innovations will be greatly disadvantaged. Many libraries are resisting Google's program, which originated in 2004, out of fear that Google would exploit these digital works via the relative monopoly they will have over digitalization of the materials.

The White Hats

Open Content Alliance pays about $30 per book to scan this material and make it available to the general public. Members and supporters of the alliance bear the burden of cost out of a vision to see the Web as a global repository of free knowledge. The Boston Public Library and the Smithsonian Institute have resisted Google's efforts into commercial skullduggery. According to a New York Times article this morning, the Boston Library Consortium of 19 New England members including the University of Connecticut and the University of Massachusetts , said they would begin working with Open Alliance to begin digitalizing their books. Bernard A. Mongolis, President of the Boston Public Library said: "We understand the commercial value of what Google is doing, but we want to be able to distribute materials in a way where everyone benefits from it." This library contains about 3.700 volumes from the personal library of John Adams. Digest the ramifications of this tidbit if you will, and imagine what other volumes might have Google ads draped over them.

Black Hat Sweetness

Adam Smith, Google's Book Search project director said: "We're excited that the O.C.A. has signed more libraries, and we hope they sign many more." So Google loves their competitors, I wonder if they will allow the Alliance to make deals with the libraries they have already signed? According to Smith Google's mostly altruistic effort (yeah) will benefit users, publishers, authors and libraries. If I remember correctly John Adams died in 1826, so I am not sure how Google intends to benefit him unless they intend to lay a wreath at his tomb once a year. What complete hogwash! Google or any other business entity we allow to become too powerful would kill Flipper for a Tuna sandwich – I hope we have all learned at least that.

Buying Your Legacy

The Library of Congress (the last I heard 'we the people' owned this) has had a pilot program (OMG) in place to let Google digitalize some volumes, but has lately embarked on a more "inclusive" approach that make many books available to OCA. So, while we surf away and gawk at the wonder and mystery of Google and Microsoft, they rather silently steal a legacy of knowledge from under our proverbial noses. Their Machiavellian take on this whole affair will be to point out how millions of people will have access to never before available material via Google. I cannot even imagine what literary or scientific treasures lay in the path of this scheme. If you think this is not serious business, check out the Harvard Google Project. Next we will see the Senate Google Project followed immediately by the Google Arlington Cemetery Project.

Conclusion

Brewster Kahle is on the Board of Directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a key supporter of OCA. I am sure this "white hat" activist is no less relieved that some libraries are resistant to "branding" knowledge than I am. The implication of what Google is trying to do is like watching a disease spread across a great living, breathing creature under the auspices of good. Harvard has the world's largest academic library consisting of over 15 million volumes. It is interesting to note that Larry Page – Google's co-founder – was one of the University of Michigan's first computer science Ph.D graduates and that Dr. Schmidt, Google's CEO is hard wired into the Boston/Cambridge dynamic and teaches part time at Stanford.

Beyond being a matter of principal, these machinations into the very fabric of knowledge reveal to me a much more disturbing circumstance. Most academics would agree that knowledge belongs to the people – unfettered and unbranded beyond copyright considerations. I am sure that Google, Microsoft and others believe in their hearts that the basis for all knowledge on the planet is best served by some oligarchic group with the resources and brains to control it. It is bad enough that we are perilously close to being under a Plutocracy as a civilization and a people, but further infringement by the elite seems so flagrant these days. Perhaps a true ‘axis of evil" resides much closer than we would like to believe.