Editorial: Going beyond Google Books

Though there is currently a lawsuit pending against the Google Books Search project by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, it does not pertain to Princeton’s participation in the project. The lawsuit disputes Google’s right to digitize “orphan” works for which there is no copyright information available. Since Princeton is only sending works from the public domain with expired copyrights — and can remove books from the database if a copyright dispute were to arise — the University has wisely avoided this legal conflict.

But this legal challenge is a reminder that Princeton’s involvement with Google — though a positive and useful partnership — could pose problems in the future. For one, Google, a for-profit corporation, may not be around forever, as it is subject to the intense competition of the technology sector. And though Google’s current goal is to digitize every book ever published, this may not always be the case. It is not unreasonable to imagine that in the future Google may develop a commercial interest in digitizing only works that would appeal to large audiences to make time for its workforce to focus on more profitable ventures. But as a research university, Princeton supports the academic ethos that scholars should not delimit their field of interest to what is “popular” or “fashionable,” a value embedded in the tenure system. If Google were to eventually seek out a particular “kind” of book, one that appealed to mass audiences, then this could violate one of Princeton’s core academic missions.

One way to both reconcile this disparity between the profit motives of Google and the academic goals of Princeton, as well as to contribute to a more stable, long-term initiative, is for Princeton to join the HathiTrust. This promising nonprofit database started by Indiana University and the University of Michigan now includes 25 large university partners intent on creating a permanent database of digitized books not subject to the economic pressures corporations face. Princeton’s participation in this project would be fairly easy thanks to the fact that the University has digital images of the books Google has scanned. Under the agreement, Princeton reserves the right to use these images as it chooses, and it could easily add them to the HathiTrust database.

Participation in the HathiTrust would be a positive first step in engaging with and contributing to a trust of this kind. It could also lead Princeton to start another similar program — within the Ivy League, for example — that would enable greater information access and resource collaboration. The Google Books Search project has given our library a great head start into the sphere of digital libraries, and at no cost. But to protect the purely academic spirit of digitized libraries, the University should seek alternatives to its participation in the Google project.