Stephen Abram called this “the Internet Librarian Tuesday night rave,” and we did seem to teeter on the edge a bit, boys and girls (though Steven Cohen had the light show earlier today).

This session had a bit of everything: visions of smaller libraries withering in the white heat of Google Print; librarians hissing at the introduction of the Google representative (?!?); the death of MARC (or was it Mark?); disembodied panel members via cell phone; a dramatic announcement from the floor; and a general gamut-run of future scenarios from info-nirvana to the Googlepocalypse (which, I should add, is still in beta).

Some people said afterwards that they thought Adam Smith of Google looked a bit scared; I think he was perhaps just taken aback at the tone of some of the questioning. My impression (and I have never met him, or heard him speak before) was that he feels that Google and libraries are working hand-in-hand towards similar goals, and that Google’s China policy really doesn’t have that much to do with anything. But that’s just one observer’s opinion.

I thought that Stephen Abram did an excellent job moderating this session. He was funny and loose and kept things moving, while allowing people enough time to develop their thoughts, and never letting us get too far off track.

I was blogging this one old skool–like back in the day when it was called “taking notes”–on my hipster PDA (a.k.a. a stack of 3×5 index cards). I got 11 cards here, back and front. Perhaps this is a good time to reiterate that this is not a transcription of direct quotes, but as accurate a summary of what was said as I can manage (I welcome corrections in comments or via email).

Let’s get down to it, as I am already looking at getting less sleep than the hapless Houston Astros. Warning: 1,200+ words after the jump.

Technorati tags: , , ,

The cast of characters:

Stephen Abram promises us time travel to the year 2020, returning us to the present at the end, “even though the present SUCKS!”

First up is Adam from Google, trying to dispel some “misconceptions” (for “misconceptions” read “lawsuits” and “possibility of congressional hearings“) surrounding Google Print.

  1. Google Print is the effort to make all books ever published (sic.) searchable/findable digitally. Google doesn’t intend to digitize it all themselves.

  2. Two aspects: publisher program (opt-in, text fully available online) and library program (pubic domain stuff fully available, in-copyright stuff (a.k.a. the “demon child,” says Adam) equivalent to a full-text index with keyword-in-context snippets returned to the user. Not giving away entire books for the © stuff.)

Stephen transports us to 2020, which is after the digital megalibrary has been successfully built. Panelists, what happened between 2005 and 2020, and what is the “current” state of affairs?

Wiggins: Doesn’t know if 2020 gives us enough time, but believes that eventually we will get to the vision Google has proposed. Google can surmount the technical hurdles and has the deep pockets that government does not.

Tennant: In 2020 we know a lot more about mass digitization. MARC is dead [no, not Mark Sandler, fellow panelist! MARC!]. Libraries have come to grips with the fact that long-standing policies and procedures are holding us back, and are ready to embrace this kind of digital content on its own terms.

Sandler: In 2020 “Internet Librarian” conference is now just “Librarian” and “ALA” conference is “Print Librarian.” University of Michigan Libraries and smart publishers still exist. Does Google? What is the life span of a seven-year-old, $100 billion company? Rural librarians now have 100 million volumes available to them digitally (whether provided by Google or someone else).

Quint: A vision of “Google Press” and “Google Full Court Press” in which Google disintermediates the publishers.

Arnold: Not interested in Google Print or Scholar as much as Google Base (which Abram summarizes (with tongue in cheek) as Google’s plan to get us all to just upload all of our intellectual property to Google’s servers). Arnold says that Google is our new Bell Labs. Software that delights us–Google Earth vs. the somewhat less delightful Microsoft.

Smith: By 2020, we don’t talk about digitization anymore, as everything is digital (because we all “did the right thing” back in 2006). We can now attend to using all that information. Everyone his own author/publisher/archivist.

Abram: What is the librarian/info professional’s role in 2020?

Sandler: Some libraries disappear due to redundancy, when users want to drink from the info fire-hose (Tennant shakes head “no” vigorously). Libraries as a place to come for professional help, like a cosmetics counter, “whatever happens there.”

Quint: Librarians discriminate on the long continuum of great to awful material. Librarians become “pro-people censors.”

Tennant: Ready to break up the digital love-fest; digital won’t make print go away (e-books spur print sales/circulation now), and libraries have never been just about stuff (call from an audience member: “I love you, man!”).

Wiggins: Our crystal balls are cloudy when it comes to how we will access the digital files. Better LCDs? “Digital paper?” That could change how people use these files dramatically.

Arnold: Managing this change, and promoting the library as an institution, not just a book warehouse, is a job for the ALA, not the rural librarian.

Smith: Digital ≠ Good. The editorial function is as important as ever. When things are digital, more people can act as editors.

Quint: ALA needs a stamp of approval on accurate, quality content.

Question from the audience: Objects to lack of representation on the panel from authors who feel that Google Print will harm them; objects to Google being major player in archiving taxpayer-funded research [I may not be summarizing her objections very well. Apologies.] Quint says she rather objects to the current state of affairs where libraries pay heavily for that same taxpayer-funded research from for-profit journal companies. Wiggins would dearly love Google to index his early books that sold in the low two-digits, as findability would drive new sales.

Question: with this scale of a project, don’t we need to think harder about evaluating information? Quint says once we have digital access, there is a great opportunity in evaluating the material. Sandler says that at research libraries, they are already buying “all but the very worst books” on spec, in case a researcher 50 years down the road might need it.

Question: How will Google solve the digital preservation problem? Smith allows that it will take lots of help from partners like libraries.

Question: What does DRM look like in 2020? *silence from panel*

Question (from Liz Lawley, I believe): Concern about a single source of all this information. Arnold says that there won’t be a single source, but that a “law of three” will prevail, and that we can expect three entities (companies, institutions, whatever) to provide greatly overlapping archives, analogous to the database situation today.

Question: Agitation about Google’s China policy. Smith says that, as Project Manager for Google Print, he has nothing to do with that and can’t comment. Some audience members remain unsatisfied.

Question: Who in 2020 will look out for the information have-nots?. Wiggins says that Google is adding to society, and should not be expected to solve all problems. Tennant says public libraries will continue to provide service to that population.

An announcement from the floor! (Now I fear I have buried the lead). The Open Content Alliance, had its meeting in San Francisco at the same time as our event. There, Microsoft announced that it will be joining the Alliance to the tune of funding the digitization of 150,000 works in the next year, branded “MSN Book Search.” See more blog coverage of that event at LibraryTechtonics and librarian.net

Question: What happens to the books when they are all scanned? Arnold says they go back on the shelf. Smith says that most books will only be show in fragments anyway, so the books must be retained to be useful.

Abram calls for final comments (and all the bloggers shed a grateful tear of relief).

Wiggins: Interesting times, and great prospects for democratic access to information.

Arnold: Expect large libraries to keep frequently circulated books on-site, with the rest in remote storage, one day away. Forget about disposing of books in the next 20 years.

Tennant: Lately has been “banging on” librarians about Google and Google-ites about libraries because we have a long way to go before we understand one another.

Sandler: Got an iPod from Elsevier, the company that keeps on giving! [A non-sequitur, but a good one!] Backs away from saying that libraries will disappear, but will say that libraries that don’t pay attention or keep up with the change in role will disappear.

Quint: [cell phone was cutting in and out and I didn't catch it. Sorry.]

Smith: Google and librarians have a shared vision of access to information as a universal right [and access to context-sensitive text ads as the frosting on the cake! No, no, he didn't say that...] Has a vision of full-text search driving greater use of print though better discovery.

[Holy cow, that's it. I hope I captured some of how stimulating (and sometimes downright odd) this session was. If you read this far, leave me some love in the comments, and I'll get Elsevier to send you an iPod (I joke, I joke!). Zzzzzzzzz....]