From The Scholarly Kitchen, posted by Rick Anderson on Jan. 3, 2011:

In a late-November issue of the New York Review of Books, Robert Darnton unburdened himself of “three jeremiads,” the third of which dealt specifically with what he considers troubling aspects of the Google Books settlement.  As I understand his primary concerns — and if I’ve misunderstood or misrepresented them, I hope someone will set me straight — they are these:

  1. Google’s purpose is not to provide access to books, but to make money for its shareholders.
  2. Libraries, by contrast, “exist to get books to readers . . . (which they do) for free.”
  3. This “incompatibility of purpose might be less troublesome if Google could offer libraries access to its digitized database of books on reasonable terms” – but, he implies, the terms embodied in the proposed settlement between Google and copyright holders are not reasonable.

Continue reading at