Re: Libraries criticized for role in Google Book Search

[Karl Bridges <kbridges@uvm.edu>]

Of course there are those kinds of costs.

I should have been more specific in that I meant Google is free 
-- in terms of currently existing as a line item in an 
organizational budget.  A perfectly reasonable quibble which I am 
glad to agree with.  A useful clarification.  Karl Bridges


Quoting "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>:

> I don't mean to quibble, but Google is not a free service. I am
> not referring to Google's many offerings in the corporate sector
> but to the core search business.  The service is paid for by
> advertisers.  It is not free to them.  It appears to be free to
> end-users, but these users are selling something whose value they
> usually don't fully appreciate:  their attention. If we put a
> price on our attention (as we should), we would look askance at
> all these advertising-supported media, of which Google is but
> one.  How much is your attention worth?  A lawyer may charge
> $400/hour.  When he or she uses Google and is presented with
> advertisements, is that a good deal?
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Bridges" <kbridges@uvm.edu>
> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>; <richards1000@comcast.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Libraries criticized for role in Google Book Search
>
>> Google is currently a free service.  This situation with Google
>> Books is a slippery slope that, ultimately, could end up with
>> Google becoming entirely a subscription service. There's
>> nothing to stop them from simply blocking access one day to all
>> .edu domains and starting to charge a fee.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with that, it's just business, but we need to
>> keep that in mind since it has serious implications for library
>> budgets. Google is not in business for altruistic reasons. It
>> exists to maximize shareholder value -- just like any other
>> large corporation.
>>
>> Karl Bridges
>> University of Vermont