I just tried requesting the The Stanford-Lockheed Meyer Library Flood Report through my local public library (ironically, the report is not available at any of the Stanford Libraries). All I got was a message that said: “Sorry, no copies available to request.”
I poked around (‘cuz that’s what librarians do) and figured out that they have a cooperative agreement with only one of the four owning libraries, and the copy of the report in that library is checked out and not due until February 10, 2010. I don’t get any options to put a hold on it, only a message that says “Sorry, no copies available for request”. To most people I know, that pretty much means the report is not available.

Why request a copy of the Stanford-Lockheed flood report? Because Google said it wasn’t available.

In an op-ed piece about Google Books in the New York Times, Sergey Brin claimed that “the vast majority of books ever written are not accessible to anyone except the most tenacious researchers at premier academic libraries.” In support of that argument, he noted that The Stanford-Lockheed Meyer Library Flood Report is no longer available.

It didn’t take long for the library community to cry foul–noting that WorldCat shows that four (yep–four whole copies) of the report are available. To many in the library community, Brin’s lie/laziness/shoddy research (pick your favorite) rendered the entire op-ed and his entire argument false.

Lorcan Dempsey offers a slightly more nuanced approach, noting that “on a closed mailing list in which I participate, one commenter argued that this level of availability meant that the volume was actually not available in any ‘practical sense’.” Dempsey himself concedes that “Certainly, if the report were available through Google Books (or some other network level repository of digital books), its availability would be greatly amplified.”

Dempsey talks about “grades of availability”, but in the end, he still insists on setting the record straight:

That said, it seemed to me (as it did to the librarians on the web4lib discussion list) that saying that this volume was no longer available was a stronger statement than the situation warranted. I could go with ‘not easily available’, but ‘no longer available’ was too much …

And as I sat there looking at something being called a muskrat, I wanted to say, no, it is a beaver …. ;-)

 

The truth is, no matter how much work we put into exposing our collections, and making InterLibrary Borrowing procedures more seamless, an item that is available in only 4 libraries is not available in any meaningful sense of the word to the vast majority of people.

Would it have been more accurate for Brin parse his claim as Dempsey suggests? Sure. Would it have been more effective if Brin had asked a reference librarian to find him an example of an item that was absolutely unavailable (i.e. no circulating copies available anywhere)? You bet. Is it sad to me that the library community has latched on to this detail at the cost of seeing the bigger truth that digitizing books and making them available online dramatically increases availability? Very, very sad.

When librarians tell other librarians “Oh look—the Stanford-Lockheed report is actually available in 4 libraries, so Google is wrong!”, we pat each other on the back and feel vindicated. When we say stuff like that to someone who gets a message “Sorry, no copies available to request.”, they’re going to look at us like we just don’t get it. Because we don’t.

Some recent writings and key quotes in defense of the Google Books settlement:

Forbes–In Defense of Google Books:

By scanning the books, Google took us to a real-world discussion of how to get these volumes into the digital world in some way that we can live with. It is questionable whether we would have gotten there without such a bold move.

Slate–Save the Google Book Search Deal:

The critics’ premise is that the monopoly that the settlement creates is invaluable—and that without the settlement, we can create a competitive market for putting out-of-print books online. But I fear that’s a fantasy that misrepresents the options.

Wired–A Writer’s Plea: Figure Out How to Preserve Google Books:

I’m also working on a book about the history of (what we now call) green technology… And without Google Books, I’m not sure it would have been possible to write it. At the very least, my contribution to the book world would have been smaller and shallower.

The searchability, accessibility and breadth of the Google Books collection do not just portend some future best-ever digital library. It’s already the best resource for research that exists.

And a full round-up of filings in the Google Books case:
The Google Books Settlement: Who Is Filing And What Are They Saying? (PDF)

Google announced today that Life Magazine is now available in Google Book Search. You can browse over 1,860 issues, covering the years from 1936 to 1972; or use Advanced Search to limit content to Magazines and enter “Life” in the Title box. This is in addition to all the other magazine fun in Google Books.

A search of Magazines with the phrase “Stanford University” and title of Life reveals plenty of gems, including a photo spread of Stanford basketball legend Hank Lusetti and a 1971 article about the famous Zimbardo Prison Experiments.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a link for embedding Magazine content, as there is for some book content (hence the screen shot).

The Plaintiffs in the Google Books case have requested that the hearing on the proposed settlement be postponed, while the parties continue to negotiate. Google does not oppose the motion, and says they look forward to addressing concerns.

The request for postponement notes that the plaintiffs and Google met with Department of Justice officials on September 17, 2009, to discuss concerns raised in the recent DOJ Statement of Interest(PDF) (summarized here). The postponement request reiterates DOJ’s commitment to work with the parties to address concerns and notes that “no one wants the ‘opportunity or momentum to be lost’.” The plaintiffs are requesting that the court schedule a “status hearing” on November 6, 2009.

Predictably, the folks at Open Books Alliance are declaring victory. James Grimmelmann has some instant reactions as well.

Meanwhile, many news reports are quoting an email from Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman, that says:
“We [Google] are considering the points raised by the Department of Justice and others, and we look forward to addressing them as the court proceedings continue.”

Google doesn’t sound like it is conceding defeat here. I suspect that those who support a settlement would second the commitment to not lose any momentum here, and would hope that the parties can negotiate well and quickly. Dragging this out wouldn’t seem to be in anyone’s best interest.