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?"
I thin kthe main thing is that all these works will be preserved digitally, open for people to read whenever they want to. Anybody saying that this is a bad thing is just a hopeless google fanboi.
Making the moon less necessary since 1998.
The libraries are making their content more accessible? Can it be bad?
It's simpler than that: if Google isn't digitizing European books somebody else has to do it and eventually somebody will create a unified search interface.
Divisive pride? What the hell is that? How does starting a different project in any way interfere with or "counter" Google's efforts?
I get enough manufactured controversy ignoring the commercials for my evening news.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
healthy competition = divisive pride
Hold on a minute... I think we're missing the point. If Goooooogle or anyone else happens to overtake the public libraries in popularity or usefulness, it is quite likely that the information available will suddenly become subject to what advertisers will pay for, and will turn in to a "top 40" of public information rather than a collected works of all public information.
If public libraries use their funds to assist each other in digitally making available all public information without regard to what is possible, then we have a GREAT thing, but when the sum total of that body of knowledge and history is governed by someone trying to make money, we, as a society, WILL lose in the end.
Its NOT about how you get the information or how it is stored... its about WHO is in charge of that information and what their motives are...
Sadly, capitalism is not good for everything...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I don't understand how this is considered "counter" or anti-google by opening up a similar service.
It seems that a lot of people around here want google to have a monopoly since it's good(tm) and microsoft is a bad(tm) monopoly. (Not that I'm a fan of MS).
All monopolies are bad, and there should be a free and open market. For all you know, this could be better than google's interface.
This turn of events is summed up well by the blurb: Google's service will be a good thing in that it is preserving works which could otherwise be destroyed or lost with time, and, most importantly, _searched_ for information as opposed to leafing through page after page; and the competition will be good in that Google will be forced to improve its service to stay on top. For the consumer: A win/win situation!
Its amazing that something so great exists in this world! The glorious idea of capitalism!
The cool thing about Google is that if the european site ends up being really useful, they might cross link to their content (like with answers.com or mapquest or whatever). Google has proven that they will give users the option of their own product and other well known products.
Google and the libraries don't have to fight, and really, they're not. I don't know why the European libraries wouldn't want Google to digitize their content, but it doesn't really matter. If Google's content and these libraries' content is free to all, then it's good.
It's not even like there's anything to compete about really, it's being done for the good of humanity.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
This is awesome, now not only are some of the grandest libraries in America being digitized, so too are some of the grandest in Europe. As great as Google is, I would very much prefer a world where all the eggs were not in one basket.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
I'm have to say that the origins of this are in a nationalistic ferver. Europe is afraid of being overshadowed by America. This project was organized by the French to fend off American Cultural Imperialism(TM). This is also healthy competition. It doesn't have to be either/or.
"The leaders of the undersigned national libraries wish to support the initiative of Europe's leaders aimed at a large and organized digitization of the works belonging to our continent's heritage," a statement said. "Such a move needs a tight coordination of national ambitions at EU level to decide on the selection of works," it added.
later
But he added: "The real issue is elsewhere. And it is immense. It is confirmation of the risk of a crushing American domination in the definition of how future generations conceive the world."
This is good even if it did arise from nationalistic pride. (Yah I know, Europe's a continent, not a country.)
It is better to not have one exclusive source of important information like this. This way we (humanity) are not storing all of our eggs in one basket. Plus Europe gets to put in more books without worrying about copyright. (Damn you Bono.) What would be best is if Google just gave the Europeans a copy of its library archives and the Europeans did likewise.
Nice Marmot
Look out! The British Royal Library is making its move!!!
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
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*
from the library-wars dept.
hisheadisdead writes "Two days after Microsoft marginally improved their next Operating System, Deutsche-Welle carry the story that the a whole host of large community of European developpers (with Richard Stallman's tacit support) have joined an EU-based operating system project as a counter to Microsoft's own operating system project. The project is the brainchild of OSDL employee Linus Torvalds, a sort of mild-mannered Jose Bove for the developpers out there. Divisive pride, or healthy competition?"
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
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.
Remember, Google doesn't own the patent on innovation.
The USPTO is already reviewing Microsoft's patent application on innovation as we speak...
He who has no
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?
Divisive pride, or healthy competition?
Neither, you idiot. They are not competing! They are not dividing! They are doing something Google is not -- digitising European works. For Christ's sake, that's like saying by building a library in a small town, you are trying to take a jab at a library in a neighboring town!
Good soundbite, but not at all true. The origins of this project are more than a decade old, and I was involved with it in 1993.
The company I worked for at the time did data capture. We won the contract to digitis French National Library - custom scanning software was written, pagination checking, QA software...the lot. This was when you needed custom graphics cards to store an largish group 4-compressed TIFF, and a lot of work went into optimising the deskewing sfotware etc.
Back then the project was called EPBF, European Biblioteqe de Francais (or Every P*ssing Book In France as one scanner operator had it), though the name later changed to just BNF (Bilbioteqe National de Francais). We were always trying to get the British Library interested too, but the dragged their heals and it's not surprising to me that it's taken them twelve years to finally get to the table.
I rather doubt this is anything to do with Google as such. It's just making better use of what they've had for years already, at least in France.
Cheers,
Ian
Sometimes people's inability to put things into perspective and understand there is a world outside the good old US of A makes me despair.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Mod me down if you wish, but I have to say that I found Google Print nice, but not too useful. Sure, it's a nice thing that you can search through paper books, but in most cases you can't actually read them; you have to buy them, and this even goes for classics such as "20,000 leagues under the sea" which are already digitized by Project Gutenberg or similar organizations: Google digitizes newer, copyrighted editions even when there are older, public domain editions available. Thus, in my eyes Google Print is little more than a marketing door for on-line bookstores.
On the other hand, French digitalization project Gallica, though sometimes mocked on Slashdot, not only digitizes books, but gives the scans away freely (as in speech), so everyone can read the books in entirety or use them as they please. Both Distributed Proofreaders and Distributed Proofreaders Europe already use Gallica scans to produce completely digitized and free e-books which you can search, read, datamine, or do with them anything that suits you. If Slashdot readers are supporters of free software, this too is something they should revere.
I hope that Europeans will not compete with Google. I hope that they will make bigger, better, and more diverse Gallica.
. . . BNF director Jean-Noel Jeanneney . . .
At first read, I wondered why Backus-Naur Form needed a director.
^_^
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.
Nothing in the article suggests each library will keep their digital versions separate. If they were, there wouldn't be much need of the different libraries to cooperate.
These libraries are going to do the same thing as Google but with their works, work that Google had no current plans to digitise. It's already going to take the 10 years to do the stuff they are planning.
So the choices are, Google digitises some works and put them on line, or Google digitises some works and puts them on line, and the European Libraries also digitise some different works and put them on line.
How is the second choice possibly standing in the way of progress? Why is it a bad thing if someone other than Google do it? I like Google, and use it a lot, but I'd rather see this sort of data stored by libraries than a private company.
If you are really bugged that it is not all in one place, it won't take long for someone to write an interface to search both. You get similar things for search engines now.
It depends on what "accessible" means. I think these guys misunderstood the motivation behind Google's effort. Google is here to organise information - not to provide it: Google Print is only there to allow you to find books that match your searches, not to read them.
Try just about any book search on Google, even about old ones. Try Austen's Sense and Sensibility. Try Hobbes' Leviathan. Whatever. Google Print will point you to a modern, copyrighted edition of the book. You will only be able to browse a few pages.
Contrast with the Gallica project at the Bibliotheque Nationale de France: thousands of digitised books, freely accessible from beginning to end, most in scanned image format, but many in full ASCII text. And Gallica is much older than Google Print (in Internet time it's about one or two generations older), though not as old as the Gutenberg project.
Judging from his language, the French dude seems to think that Google Print is a scaled-up, English-language Gallica. It isn't. But if European libraries get their act together and start a project to make literally millions of books freely accessible for all in all European languages, hey, I'm all for it !
Thomas-
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.
Oh Great American Lord,
I apologize to be the small european insect I am.
Please continue to show me the way to the True-Way-Of-Life.
How to make war to the rest of the world.
How to destroy the eco-system as much as possible.
How to elect stupid arrogant bastards.
How to venere our Lord the Market.
How to refute silly theory like Darwinism, etc. and be true biggots.
How to give weapons to our child so they can be mass murderers.
And, most of all, how to give lessons to everyone without the slightest doubt.
Amen.
Et, tant que t'y est , VTDLC, gros bouffon.
So what's the big deal with language anyhow ? It is the main way of comunication, and this is about all.
Why do they keep complaining that French is ruined by English, you don't hear Chinese, Spanish, Russian or German speaking people complaining about this, and their languages are more popular than FrenchIt also used to be the vector of a culture. The simple point that in french a 'cadeau' (gift) does not come from the verb 'donner' (to give) means a lot. Every language is linked to a culture, and every culture expresses itself in a language better. So every couple culture+language should be saved.
Or we go straight to "plus plus good".
The point exactly. One defends himself when threatened, or when feeling so.
French people are sore losers.probably gave you "-1 flamebait", but at least, you said it.
And, by the way, Russian and ukrainian are two different languages.*squeak*
>realize that the French are slimy, greedy bastards, too
And your point is?
I want a backup, just in case the U.S. breaks down. France/EU/Congo/Whatever may not be that reliable either, but is good to know that we have fallback positions. The EU is rapidly positioning itself as U.S. backup on many fronts. And that's great news.
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.
Hate to tell you, but any history you have America shares. It might not have happened here, but it happened to my ancestors as much as it did yours.
The US is the longest running continuous government in the modern world.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
The US is the longest running continuous government in the modern world.
No idea what you mean here or what relevance it has, but you do realise that Britain had a Prime Minister before the start of the US' War of Independence? (1735, Sir Robert Walpole first entered 10 Downing Street)
The US is the longest running continuous government in the modern world.
Only if you define "longest running continuous government" is such a way as to exclude all the other governments that have been around for a longer time. This is a non-argument, and requires you to ignore changes to the USA government but rule any changes to other governments to be a change of government type.
(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?
Divisive pride, or healthy competition?
Who cares? If it means more literature is digitally preserved then its all good.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Well i'm not French, i'm Belgian. I'm frenchspeaker. The sad thing about this project is that "once again" a French official found a way to put some "Anti-american" bashings in his speech. I'm fed up by their rethoric. It looks more and more like xenophoby to me. The French "elites" have a great problem with the US because nobody in France is listenning to them. Read their speeches and then go to Paris. Movie theatres make money with American action films not with their boring state funded nombrilistic social drama movies. Mc Donalds restaurants are everywhere. Young people wear NBA t-shirts and American brands on the street. Nobody feels threatenned by the American "culture" except the elites. People still speak French, still enjoy French food and still read French magazines, still wear French brrands etc. There is nothing wrong with some new ways of living coming from a foreign culture. Even the French language is the consequence of a much bigger cultural invasion (Rome) and France as a political entity from a Germanic invasion (Clovis, Charlesmagne). Anyway back to the real topic: The project is simply great. I would feel more confortable if this European heritage is under public organization supervision than under a private company one. Google is a private company. Its goal is about making money. Here we are talking about culture heritage. Knowledge must be free. It should be copied, duplicated, modified, distributed freely. Nobody can have any claim on patents, copyrights or any stuffs like that. Anyway As somebody pointed out. Sooner or later googlebot will browse their database and index it anyway. Maybe they could use it like they did with dmoz.org . And other search engines too... That's the real point. Sooner or later a better (privatly funded) search engine will come out and will get an access to this public database. Olivier
Also, the Brits might disagree, since their parliament history goes back to before the "new world" was discovered.
Don't know how your post was modded flamebait (oh! hang on, yes I do: kneejerk moderation).
I'm a Brit, and I think what you say is broadly correct.
However, the US also "Always Fail IT" as it tends to react against, or try to ignore, or reinvent as its own, Non-US innovations.
What you say about the British Library is correct however.
I have been constantly frustrated by the lack of access to works in the BL. Of course, many of these tomes are priceless, so you can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry thumbing them with grubby fingers, but a digital copy could have, and should have, been made that could be freely available.
Given the amount of money wasted on so many dubious public 'projects' here in the UK, any money spent on this would have been very worthwhile IMO.
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
Indeed, the last thousand years of British political history is defined by the rise in supremacy of Parliament. It's now a rather ironical situation where the monarch has absolute power, but can't (or won't) use it. Parliament taking away the monarch's ability to collect taxes being a key point in the process. The Magna Carter (1215) was is just one of the things that lead to the form of the US goverment. The British Bill of Rights (1689) is also presumably a seed for the ideas that led to the more encompassing American one.
Anyway, let's not be so serious. The OP clearly didn't write that intending to be taken serious. How could they?