Am I the only one who finds it incredibly irritating to hear or read about Adam Smith of Google Print, constantly refer to their digitization work as building a ‘card catalog’ of books? HELLO! Card catalog, it isn’t. Please do not refer to it that way, folks. Modern online catalog systems are nothing like the card catalog and, in my opinion, should not be referred to in that way. Not to demean the card catalog; it actually is/was a very useful tool that could/can be better used to find things in certain ways than an online catalog can. (E.g. I think a card catalog is a much more user-friendly tool for browsing than an online catalog will ever be.) I just think that those who continue to use the term ‘card catalog’ to describe an entirely different technology are displaying an irritating ignorance of the state of library technology these days. Most people have no clue as to how technologically advanced most libraries are these days. The use of the term ‘card catalog’ by people outside of our profession tends, in my mind, to reinforce the incorrect stereotype of libraries as backward and only concerned with print materials. This is just as negative in its own way as the eternal stereotype of librarians as spinsters with their hair in a bun, shushing patrons.

Also let it be known that I am not at all anti-Google Print. I heartily welcome this development and do not share the suspicious and/or distrustful attitudes of some librarian colleagues toward Google in relation to their work in this area. It will be quite interesting to see how their interpretation of fair use in copyright will play out. I think their pursuit of this digitization effort, including copyrighted works, will play a central role in redefining copyright law.