Siva Vaidhyanathan has written a Google-bashing article for the Chronicle of Higher Education (via if:book), taking a contrarian view of the impact of Google Print (actually now called Google Book Search).

Far from simply extending its renowned search engine to books, Vaidhyanathan claims that Google is building a monopoly, which could ultimately be used to damaging effect. The main potential area of abuse, it appears, would be to personal privacy. Just imagine what Google could do if it knew what books we were searching for online!

Sorry if I’m underwhelmed, but Google Book Search doesn’t strike me as any brand-new invasion of privacy. I think most people would probably be more embarrassed by their standard Google searches than what they might seek in a library card catalog.

Vaidhyanathan goes on to make the legal case against Google, discussing the precedents which show that Google Book Search is different from what it does in cacheing web pages. While I’m not completely convinced by his argument, I do think the legal case is a bit beside the point here. The main question is, should we allow people to search through the text of books online without the copyright-holder’s permission? If it’s a bad thing, then even if current laws allow it, they should be rewritten. If it’s a good thing, we should do all we can to encourage online indexing of books.

In any case, Google is certainly not building a book-searching monopoly. Only a few libraries have agreed to loan their collections to Google; other libraries could choose other methods to index their books online. An intriguing way to accomplish this might be the model of distributed proofreaders, a collective effort to scan books and put them online. Maybe a group of libraries could get a grant that would allow their patrons to scan books instead of xeroxing them (or alternately, digital copiers could store scanned versions simultaneously with printing paper copies). These scans would be added to the library’s digital collection; another group of volunteers would help organize the works as they are collected. Such a system would evolve organically, like open-source software. And like the open-source movement, it may not actually approach the seamlessness and exhaustiveness of commercial versions, but the simple fact of a free competitor could serve to keep commercial businesses in line.

In making this response to Vaidhyanathan, I’m not a mere “Google defender.” I’ve got a lot of qualms with the way Google does business (a few examples: I think Book Search leaves a lot to be desired, I’d like them to be more supportive of the open-source movement, I’d like to see them do a better job indexing databases and other portions of the “deep web,” and I’d appreciate more openness about their intentions), but when Google creates a product as useful as Book Search, I’m not going to criticize it simply for the sake of Google-bashing.

We certainly need to keep our eyes on Google to make sure they don’t abuse their position of power in the online world. And we most definitely shouldn’t complacently accept Google’s products without questioning their motives. But for now, Google Book Search looks to be the most promising online tool for indexing books. We shouldn’t destroy that tool before it has even been created.

So you have one abortion, that’s okay, everyone makes mistakes. But have two abortions, and suddenly you’re a brazen hussy at worst, and one of society’s “problems” at best.

Apparently even liberals are anti-sex when it gets down to it.

The headline says it all, folks. Please blog against racism tomorrow. See here for details.