David Pearson: It seems to me that Google had the big idea that the libraries failed to have about 10 years ago about the way the world was going to be in the information age. Google saw it and took it forward in ways that the publicly funded library sector are catching up with rather slowly. Should we have any concerns?
RO: to some extent Google are a bunch of pussy cats. When you go to their campus you double the average age just by being there. They are Gap-wearing skateboarders. They are very clever but not evil geniuses waiting to enslave us all. They have some big ideas and lots of money so can put some into practice. We’re worried to the extent that we will make out own arrangements for the long term preservation of the stuff we’re digitising with them. We will take care of it in perpetuity.
MR: it’s not just a question of whether they are pussycats now but what they will be like in 50 years time. We just don’t know.
MK: elements of scholarly publishing industry which librarians have supported and shouldn’t have such as exorbitant pricing. but that system produces wonderful results, widely read and widely used. With scholarly publishers not for profit and based in universities you see very high level work, beautifully presented with wide access and taking advantage of the internet. Google does not own very much intellectual property – they make use of other people’s. We are protecting the interests of the citizenry for the very long term though would be terrific if the scholarly community at large felt strongly enough to talk to their representative to get the law changed and return value to the citizenry rather than the Disney corporation
CB: How far is this perceived as additionality or substitution? There is a risk that get told that we don’t need to do it because Google is. We have to go forward and give it the right narrative and context.
Brian Kelly: I think it was two young researchers at Stanford who had the big idea back in the 1990s. Now Facebook has appeared from two young students. The development work seems to be happening but in a different context to what is happening in the UK. How can we not make the same mistake again?
MK: it’s a conundrum. Google started as a ranking system, not the text indexing system it has begun. They are all well-meaning people and I believe that this generation of ownership has some quite high level goals. But it is our responsibility to take care to make sure that we are preserving and making accessible for a long time for the public good all the artefacts that we can and should reach. It’s a tough job but possible.
Alistair Dunning: Matthew, do you think if you’d had Google when you were doing your PhD would it have been better?
MS: yes, it is an improvement as you have to spend less time on really simple things like tracking down information. New research skills are needed.
Bernie Reilly: we worry about Google but another possibility is that Google might succeed at something that libraries have wanted for a long time which is to make all content free. How might the MLA sector position itself to ensure greater public value if this scenario takes place?
RO: it goes back to advocacy with government. Much of the MLA sector here is owned by the state and controlled by government. A deal with the state to ensure free access to museums has seen a dramatic uptake in visits to museums. We need to make the same case in the digital world. It needs to happen more aggressively. It’s where partnership with the commercial sector becomes more important.
MK: Google is worth about 167bn dollars. Turnover for the publishing industry is about 22bn a year. They should buy them!