Google announced a settlement in their lawsuit with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers.

Today we’re delighted to announce that we’ve settled that lawsuit and will be working closely with these industry partners to bring even more of the world’s books online. Together we’ll accomplish far more than any of us could have individually, to the enduring benefit of authors, publishers, researchers and readers alike.

From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

If approved by a judge, the accord would allow users of Google Book Search in the United States to see the full texts of books they can read only in snippets now. The deal would also have the potential to put millions more out-of-print or hard-to-find titles within the reach of readers and researchers. Institutions would be able to buy subscriptions so that their students and faculty members could have full access to complete texts. All public libraries in the United States would be given free portals for their patrons. (The settlement does not apply to the use of Google Book Search outside the United States.)

A few days ago I attended the heard Jay Jordan speak about the future of libraries at the NELINET Library Directors Forum. Among other things, he talked about the Local WorldCat pilot project as a significant shift in the way libraries will provide bibliographic information to library users. (The University of Washington Libraries is the first to launch its Local WorldCat interface.) Growing out of recent findings that nearly 90% of all information seekers begin with an Internet search engine (like Google, Yahoo, etc.), OCLC determined that making WorldCat a search engine for all of the world’s “curated” (professionally selected and cataloged) information is a way to enable libraries to compete. He suggests that OCLC can do things with its massive database and computing power that local libraries (even major research libraries) simply can’t do effectively. The premise of Local WorldCat is that libraries can benefit from an individualized interface to such enhanced data services and computing power that is delivered via the network rather through local computing resources. Though he didn’t name it, this represents a significant shift toward what is sometimes called “cloud computing.”

This morning’s NY Times article by Steve Lohr and Miguel Helft points to Google’s adoption of that strategy in much of their technology.

“To explain, Mr. Schmidt steps up to a white board. He draws a rectangle and rattles off a list of things that can be done in the Web-based cloud, and he notes that this list is expanding as Internet connection speeds become faster and Internet software improves. In a sliver of the rectangle, about 10 percent, he marks off what can’t be done in the cloud, like high-end graphics processing. So, in Google’s thinking, will 90 percent of computing eventually reside in the cloud?” (“Google Gets Ready to Rumble With Microsoft”, NY Times, Dec. 16, 2007)

Cloud computing is a significant trend that could radically change the way libraries provide access to information resources.

My earlier post about using a feed from an OCLC web service to supply data to our web site exemplifies a principle that I’ve adopted for the Theology Libraries efforts. There are a number of companies and organizations with massive computing power, and even a few smaller ones, that are able to provide data to us if we can utilize it. We need to develop the ability to mashup the data that are available to us with our own data to better serve our users.

John Wilkin’s post about the Next Generation Library Systems nicely states the principle and its corollary. We need to develop ways to make our data available to others…

We must not try to do what the network can do for us. We must find ways to facilitate integration with network services and ensure that our investment is where our role is most important (e.g., not trying to compete with the network services unless we think we can and should displace them in a key area). For example, we have recognized that Google will be a point of discovery, and so rather than trying to duplicate what they do well for the broad masses of people, we should (1) put all things online in a way that Google can discover; and (2) because we recognize that Google won’t build services in ways that serve all scholarly needs, work to strategically complement what they do.

I’ve been experimenting a little with Google Documents (http://docs.google.com) in the past few weeks. This morning I created a presentation on Title 17 Section 108 for a lunch conversation about Copyright and Libraries, specifically focused on Boston University’s libraries beginning efforts to plan for a digitization project. I was generally pleased with the ease of creating the document. It isn’t as robust as MS PowerPoint, but it certainly met my needs.

It was possible to upload a PowerPoint presentation as a starting point. I was surprised, however, that I couldn’t download to a PowerPoint file, nor could I print it. With documents and spreadsheets, it is possible to export to a MS Office file. I didn’t try it, but a feature I really like is the ability to interact through chat with those who might be viewing the presentation online.

I was able to publish the document as well. This provides a URL (on Google) that is discoverable by the public. And this post is being written using Google Documents as the editor. In configuring options, I’m able to specify my blog for posting…

ARS Technical has a news story about a complaint with the FTC filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association claiming that

…professional sports leagues, Hollywood studios, and book publishers were all using copyright notices that misrepresented the law.

The group, including Google and Microsoft, has launched a new Web site called Defend Fair Use to support its complaint.

Google’s efforts expand….

Google book search adds five Catalonian libraries – Yahoo! News
The National Library of Catalonia and five affiliated libraries have agreed to take part in Google Inc.’s bid to scan book collections of the world’s great libraries, the third in Europe to join the project.

The two organizations said in a statement that they would soon be digitizing hundreds and thousands of public domain works, including collections by Catalonian writers such as Ramon Llull, Angel Guimera and Jacint Verdaguer as well

Google, the Khmer Rouge and the Public Good

Address to the Professional/Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers

An interesting summary and rationale for the decision to participate in the Google Book Search project.

The Chronicle: Daily news: 08/09/2006 — 01

The University of California system has joined Google’s controversial book-digitization project, and the partnership is expected to convert millions of books from the system’s 100 libraries — even volumes that are protected by copyright — into fully searchable electronic texts. Google officials say they plan to add even more academic libraries to the program in the near future.

Adding University of California would be a significant addition….

University of California May Join Google’s Library Project – Los Angeles Times
In a move with major significance for the worlds of academic research and publishing, the University of California is in talks to join Google’s controversial project to digitize great libraries and offer books online.

Google is keen to have access to UC’s 34 million volumes from 100 libraries on 10 campuses, which is described as collectively the largest academic research library in the world. UC wants to delve more deeply into the Internet revolution with a deep-pockets partner like Google paying the costs of scanning books.

Even with the addition of the University of California collections, significant gaps will remain. Brian Lavoie, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, and Lorcan Dempsey did an analysis of the original “Google 5″ libraries published in D-Lib Magazine (September 2005). They compared the collective holdings of the Google 5 against the system-wide collection in OCLC:

The proportion of the system-wide collection actually covered by GDLP, once duplicate holdings across the five institutions are removed, is about one third (33 percent), or 10.5 million unique books out of the 32 million in the system-wide collection. About two-thirds (67 percent) of the system-wide collection, or 21.6 million books, are not held by any Google 5 library.

Speaking about the future of scholarly publishing, Kate Wittenberg echoes what I’ve been saying for awhile:

The Chronicle: 6/16/2006: Beyond Google: What Next for Publishing?
Most students today arrive at college assuming that a Google search is the first choice for doing research, that MySpace is the model for creating online content and building peer communities, and — perhaps most important — that multitasking with various electronic devices, often from remote locations, is the traditional way to do class work. The implications of those changes must transform our publishing strategies.

If “digital natives” are the next audience for our scholarly resources, shouldn’t we be thinking about new ways to organize, store, and deliver our content? In fact, is content even what we should be focusing on for this next generation of users, or are the tools, functionality, and access built on top of the content what are of real value?

Hers is one of a growing number of voices suggesting the need for radical change in scholarly publishing. I really like her phrase: “Beyond Google.” It’s hard now to envision life beyond Google, but it may be better to think not about the demise of the company, but what happens as Google becomes a commodity. What will be the emerging trends, expectations, etc. that will shape the information discovery and seeking patterns of our users.

Frederick Nesta has a brief article entitled: “Google Your Library’s Mission,” in Library Journal‘s June issue that suggests a few ways the Google corporate philosophy might help libraries plan for their future. Nesta pushes us to think beyond traditional collections and services. Perhaps what lies beyond Google is a different way of being libraries…