separate from Googles. HathiTrust partners have undertaken ongoing copyright review of orphan works to open access to volumes that are, in fact, in the public domain. Thousands of these volumes have already been opened, as well as a growing number of volumes that rights holders give HathiTrust permission to make available online. Libraries are much further ahead in the game than Darnton would have readers believe. Although there are disappointments for Google partner libraries in the settlement agreement, libraries have worked to secure important privileges, including significant influence over the commercial pricing of Googles Book Search product. The settlement also sanctions important uses of digital volumes, including those that are in copyright. These include providing access to content to users with print disabilities and using libraries digitized volumes in large-scale computational research. Opening the enormous body of Google-scanned content to new user populations and methods of inquiry will have a transformative effect on our ability to produce and analyze knowledge about our society, our heritage, and the world. We invite Harvard to join us in this endeavor! Paul Courant, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, University of MichiganLaine Farley, Executive Director, California Digital LibraryPaula Kaufman, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, University of Illinois at Champaign-UrbanaJohn Leslie King, Vice Provost for Academic Information, University of MichiganBrian Schottlaender, University Librarian, University of California, San Diego LibrariesCarolyn Walters, Interim Dean of Libraries, Indiana UniversityBrad Wheeler, Chief Information Officer, Indiana UniversityJohn Wilkin, Executive Director of HathiTrust and Associate University Librarian, Library Information Technology, University of MichiganTo the Editors: In his article on the Google book digitization project Robert Darnton spoke in passing of faults that mar Googles enterprise. He mentioned, among other things, missing pages, omitted artwork, and censoring. No doubt because I have not followed the controversy closely, these charges were news to meand troubling, not least the idea of Google censoring books. It would be useful if Darnton could give any specific examples of such faults. Anthony LewisCambridge, MassachusettsTo the Editors: Robert Darnton is right to suggest that the US government, or some other quasi-public consortium, should buy out Googles vast digital library of orphaned and out-of-print books. If Google insists on retaining these holdings, it should be assigned the status of a public utilitylike a gas, water, or electric companyand the appropriate regulatory authority should be set up. As with any monopoly of an essential public service, prices should be controlled, privacy should be protected, and open access should be guaranteed. Google is entitled to a reasonable return on its investment, but if future business decisions jeopardize this essential human resource, another provider should be found, and Google should be forced to divest. Theodore KoditschekDepartment of HistoryUniversity of Missouri Columbia, MissouriRobert Darnton replies:As my friends from Michigan know, I think the HathiTrust is a good thing and have applauded it from the beginning. It provides a remedy to one of the weaknesses in Google Book Search (GBS) by assuming responsibility for the preservation of the digital material. Although we had developed a preservation program at Harvard long before the creation of Hathi,