Slashdot Mirror
European Libraries Counter Google Digitisation
headisdead writes "A week after Google substantially improved their UK site, Deutsche-Welle carry the story that the a whole host of large European libraries (with the British Library's tacit support) have joined an EU-based digitisation project as a counter to Google's own library scheme. The project is the brainchild of BNF director Jean-Noel Jeanneney, a sort of mild-mannered Jose Bove for the librarians out there. Divisive pride, or healthy competition?"
As long as the information is equally accessible, preserved with interoperable (read: open) standards and of similar quality I'm grossely indifferent whose flag is waving over the server-farm. Wasn't the internet supposed to do away with this nationalistic bs? *sigh*
Still, I'm wondering, wouldn't it have been easier to join Google rather than fight them? Or did they think of that, and did Google not want to play along?
Google scans those books for business purposes, libraries scan them for library purposes. There are differences between the two.
Now, it is possible (I don't know) that when Google works with libraries, the libraries get copies of the images as if they had scanned the books themselves. In that case, when Google offers to work with a library, it makes sense to accept the offer.
But if Google doesn't actually offer to work with a particular library, or if they aren't interested in the same books as the library, or if there are restrictions on the use of the scanned images that are stricter than if the library scanned the documents themselves, then it makes sense for that library to scan the books themselves.
Harlan Ellison doesn't like people trading his books on bittorent. Fair enough. I'm guessing he probably also doesn't like libraries lending his books out either, since both represent a lost sale - though most of his books are out of print. Lending books out is generally accepted, though perhaps grudgingly in some quarters, because at least the libraries buy a copies in the first place and also give back to authors in various ways, depending on which country we're talking about. When the physical books dies a death and all we're left with are ebooks will this be the end of libraries lending books? A lot of (most?) people buy books because of convenience (they might be slow readers or just not want to haul themselves to a library at all. Heck they might even be obssessives about cleanliness.) but if a library could "lend" you an ebook (time limited DRM gizmo doodad...) then everyone will be borrowing. ie there's no way it'll be permitted. I know there's a big difference between national libraries and the public lending library but it's funny that one, by making digitised books acceptable, might lead to the death of the other.
The Bodleian library (working with Google) had a pilot digitization project of the manuscript library for something like 10 years; then Google comes along and signs them up.
There's a group through the Czech national library that's been putting stuff up, and is exploring offerring it on a subscription basis (merely 3000 Euro/year, and institutions only need apply).
For me, the best online digitization of a library currently available is already the BNF, and that project has poor quality control (unreadable scans), shaky connection qualities and bad links galore (an essential reference dictionary for my field is missing the volumes containing the letters A-C, and S-Z).
Without doubt, the EU consortium is using anti-americanism and anti-corporatism to justify the tons of government payouts needed to fund this; without doubt the documents won't be as easy to access as Google's project. But hell, if it puts more books online, I'm all for it. And unlike Google, many of these libraries have been around for centuries; one would hope that in a few centuries, they'll still be here. Google may be doing great, but will it be here in ten years?
Libraries in the US are getting closer to censorship than ever. Take for example this new Alabama Bill targeting Gay Authors from an elected Republican representative in the state legislature, Gerald "book-burying " Allen. Consider other minor incidents like the New Mexico Book burning party . Can you spot a trend?
.
Google already succumbed to China censorship pressures. Would they resist censorship pressures from the Christian right, inside the US? Yea, right, just like Microsoft did
Don't fool yourself, folks. US companies are no longer a reliable for such a task. If Google is allow t create another de facto monopoly in Library Search, we risk gay books, Evolution volumes or the freaking Harry Potter adventures disappearing anytime now.
Let me ask you, who's going to preserve Western Culture heritage if the US completes it's path towards fascism bushflash.com/14.html? India!? The Chinese!!? Well, apparently it's going to be the French. Good for them.
The only European countries that speaks English are Britain and Ireland. France isn't in a "sea of English", it's part of Europe, it's in a sea of French, German, Spanish, Italian and a whole load more.
According to french.about.com 113 million people speak it fluently on a regular basis. It is the second most widely taught second language after English.
It is the official language of France; Bénin; Burkina Faso; Central African Republic; Congo (Democratic Republic of); Congo (Republic of); Côte d'Ivoire; Gabon; Guinea; Luxembourg; Mali; Monaco; Niger; Sénégal; Togo; the Canadian province of Québec; and the Swiss districts of Vaud, Neuchâtel, Genève; Jura; French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion; French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, French southern and Antarctic lands.
It's the co-official language of Belgium, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti (the two official languages are French and French Creole), Madagascar, Rwanda, Seychelles, Switzerland, and Vanuatu.
I'm not French, but I certainly respect a country for trying to keep their own cultural identity. Sometimes that get a bit carried away with the language thing, but it doesn't seem to be hurting them. Remember, English is taught in their schools from a young age, and lots of French people speak really good English.
Just as a reminder, the French project of an almost purely digital library (Bibliotheque de France) has been a huge money burner. Their IT system is a complete mess, a mess in which they have already sunk millions of Euros.
Who was the President of that fiasco? Jeanneney, the same guy who is now trying to 'counter Google' or something. I suspect this so-called 'European' project is a scam to obtain more money for his own aggrandizement.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
There's more to it than just french chauvinism the likes. I see it as a two-fold problem.
1. Selection. Digitisation implicates selection of the materials you are going to digitize. Even Google can't digitise every book in the world. A lot of people feel that the selection of several North-American university libraries doesn't reflect world culture but just North-American culture.
Now, I'm a bit pragmatic on the issue: the selection of the works isn't language-based or geography-located. So I suppose a great deal of (at least translations of) world literature is going to find it's way into the Google project.
Still, the issue stands that making a balanced selection is a big responsibility that should be shared. Not centralised in one big company.
2. This brings me to my second point: interests. At best you could say this is just Google's patronage of the preservation of our cultural heritage. But what are the interests of a commercial firm like Google? Actual preservation of important works and improving access to those works? Or rather monopolising the control over the access and dissemination of information? Already the - imho false - notion that "if it's not on Google, it doesn't exist" is gaining field. I feel this is just one expression of the increasing control of Google over how the general public perceives information.
Now, in this respect, this new european project is perhaps perceived as biased towards futile and useless fighting against Google and "americanisation" but I, for one, wouldn't like to wake up noticing that our perception of the world and world culture is being dictated by some companies based on the other side of the globe.
Try just about any book search on Google.
The thing is Google will not digitize all the books in the world, but only those found in a few US libraries. What european librarians fear is that this will result is a biased view of the world, where anglo-saxon culture is the only one represented, and everything else disappears into oblivion. As more and more people rely almost exclusively on Google to find information, if it's not indexed by Google, it's like it does not exist.
Read again what Jeanneney says in the article on Deutsche Welle: "It's normal that America is in the first rank to develop that wonderful gift to humanity. I'm not criticizing it, I just tell Europeans that America will play its game, and we must play ours."
(Some) folks: forget about the nationalistic/risk/fight tone of TFA. This is sensationalism to get the article through. This does not help. It misses the point. It mis-reports the essential.
Folks, just think technically. Q: What gets to be used by a majority ? A: The most exposed stuff. Discussion: There should be no convincing work needed there (I hope.) That's the basic of advertisement. This is independent of nation/subject/topic/culture.
Getting English literature digitalised is fantastic. This will lead mechanically to more exposure, thus more use. There is no need to be French (or whatever you name it) to realise that. There is no agressivity involved in saying so. It is only being clear-minded about it to say "well we may want to gain exposure as well in order to not be forgotten on the long term". It is only fair. There is no question of imperialism here. Just relax! This is gentle and nice point. Ultimately, as mentioned above, Google will reference all and that's exactly what we (well... me) want? Isn't it?
Z.
PS: I am tired about the ranters: starting flames as soon as a French stuff comes on /. scene. Pretty much repetitive, always orientated toward fight...( yaaaaarning ), missing the point ,not funny. Just please: relax, look and write about the interesting stuff. Just please. Can I beg?
I would reckon it's just another person who thinks that socialism = communism
:)
Us Western Europeans generally take home more money than Americans do, especially as our minimum wage is quite a bit higher (namely in France, what do you know?)
The main thing is, Europe doesn't want a unique global culture, which is the risk with google's project that's only in English, and mainly American. Diversity is a strength, that Europe plans on keeping
Isn't the Iroquois confederacy the longest running democracy in the world at 800 years?
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind
USA isn't even the longest running government in North America....On top of that, it wasn't even continuosly running:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/countdown/
Cheers,
Rich