[akadruid]

This article argues seems to be suggesting that Google have a unique responsibility - almost as if they have somehow removed something that already existed.

I disagree with their fundamental premise that Google is "the world's last digital library". Google's demonstration that such a thing is actually possible removes one barrier to entry. They have also set a precedent which reduces the negotiation required for future projects.

The fact that Google has done a poor job (so far) on the metadata is something that's worth highlighting - but it's not a reason to curse the whole project. This is fixable, possibly even a transient issue. GBS is an entirely new resource, which scholars have not had before; if they find it unsuitable for scholarly research, perhaps they could continue to use their existing tools or work to improve it, rather than slam the effort as "A Disaster For Scholars". "A Useful Tool Which Still Needs Improvement" might not be as snappy but the The Chronicle Of Higher Education doesn't look like the Daily Mail either.

[SkyMarshal]

> "I disagree with their fundamental premise that Google is "the world's last digital library". Google's demonstration that such a thing is actually possible removes one barrier to entry."

That was my first reaction too, but then I realized the article was implying that the real barrier to entry is the work of scanning billions of books into digital form.

After Google has done that, there will be little incentive for anyone else to incur that same expense to create a service that Google already has a 5 year head start on.

Alot of startups these days are about finding better ways of doing things in already-crowded domains. Google itself showed the way there. But I'm not sure I disagree with article in its assertion that doing this will be much more difficult, if not virtually impossible, in this domain of creating a digital library from scanned books. There really is a significant moat here.