LJ talks to James Hilton

-- Library Journal, 9/27/2005

In the lawsuit filed against Google by the Author’s Guild the University of Michigan library was explicitly mentioned—not as a party to the suit but because the plaintiffs in the case could be sure that their books would be digitized at Michigan. Indeed Michigan is giving Google access to its entire collection, while other Google Print partners are proceeding on a smaller scale. While authors, and publishers, slug it out with Google, Michigan’s James Hilton, Associate Provost for Academic Information and Instructional Technology Affairs, talked to LJ about the program and its public benefit.

Your thoughts on the Author’s Guild suit?

We’re disappointed it’s turned to legal action, but we think the debate is an important one. I think there is a tremendous amount at stake in terms of public policy and the public good. We believe this project represents an enormous—you can even say a transformation in the way knowledge is going to be navigated. And, of course, throughout history enormous breakthroughs create challenges. What we don’t want, however, is for people to lose sight of the enormous public benefit that comes from this project.

Opponents of the plan often note that Google is a for-profit entity, but does that preclude them from being viewed as offering a “public good” in this case?

I would say that Google has changed the way that people navigate knowledge on the web and I would say that’s a good thing. There are two things that we think are transformative about the Google Print project. One is that you digitize the works, index them, and that means that everyone can now search the printed word. If it’s in copyright you might not be able to see it, but at least you can find it. The other aspect is that there is nobody except for libraries whose mission, whose job it is to archive things for future generations. One of the concerns we’ve had from the beginning is that we have all this printed material, but if it’s not digitized the odds of it being seen as relevant for future generations goes way down. That doesn’t mean that it’s all going to be read online. But if it’s not found online the odds of it being relevant in the future is going to be very low.

Do you believe that publishers have the capability, capital, or maybe the desire to digitize their backlists as quickly as Google is moving?

Publishers might start indexing their materials, but it is hard to imagine them committing to archive it forever. Imagine going to stockholders and saying ‘this is our business plan, we’re going to take on this huge liability forever.’ But universities look at themselves and their missions in perpetuity. Our core mission is to preserve information, to archive it and make sure it can be found for future generations.

With the important discussion you mention now in court, are you concerned that a verdict could have a negative impact on digitization?

Again, this goes back to why we believe this is a matter of public policy. Obviously we believe the project is well within the bounds pf copyright law, both the spirit and the letter of the law. Copyright exists to advance social good, so a verdict that went against that would raise some serious public policy issues. It would be interesting to see how the public would respond to a decision that said that in a world that is increasingly digital, libraries can’t have copies.

Can you briefly describe what Google will be getting from your book collections?

Google will be digitizing everything.

And what you will be getting from Google? Some media reports have made it sound as though you were in this just for the free digital copy Google will provide you.

It’s true if you look at the contract it says that Google gets to copy our bound material and we get a digital copy back for free, but, no, that’s not why we did it. Our goal is to make the printed word indexed and accessible for searching for the long haul, that’s an ideal, an objective that we share with Google. It’s the ideal that’s pushing the project.

At Michigan, you were digitizing books well before Google, correct?

Correct. In fact I think we probably had the most aggressive digitization project of academic libraries out there and it was still going to take us 1000 years to make it through our collection at a cost that was staggering. So to find a partner in Google that could accelerate that was tremendous.

Has the issue been at all contentious on campus? For example has the administration worried about the legal aspects or have you had tense moments with publishers?

The administration understands perfectly what is at stake in terms of public policy, and the discussions we’ve had with publishers have been fine. The fact is that libraries and universities have a vested interest in healthy publishing. Publishers are often afraid of what they don’t know, but when we talk to them about why libraries exist and why libraries want digital copies and why we think this program is a good thing it is a compelling case. One of the things that digitization will bring to libraries is the ability to get a much better handle, both within themselves and between institutions, on what they are hanging on to for the long haul. The Google project is not going to change our acquisitions budget or our behavior. It might change our storage. It might change what we hold and how many copies we hold for the long haul. It might allow libraries to rationalize their long term storage strategies. But it’s not going to impact our acquisitions.

Usage, on the other hand, could be dramatically affected?

Oh yes, that part of the argument I truly believe. If you make things accessible they get used. I just saw a story that, I think, said every tune in Apple’s iTunes has been accessed at least once. So, clearly, the more light you can shine on things, the better.