Talk:Google Book Search Settlement Agreement

Inaccurate statement

The statement on Harvard terminating its agreement with Google is not accurate. It implies that Harvard's disagreement with Google is that Google is scanning copyright works. However, the cited article seems to make the opposite assertion:

“As we understand it, the settlement contains too many potential limitations on access to and use of the books by members of the higher education community and by patrons of public libraries”

72.85.175.30 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I found it strange, indeed. --Nemo bis (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence as it was clearly based on a misreading of the cited source. Cwlb (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone, i understand the enthusiam that one can find the book-text in this instant easy accesible way. BUT somehow i got kind of nervous about copyright. Is it "fair" that everyone can find (read and use) text itself, for example a very specific medicine-book, writen to study ecography/ultrasonic ... without paying it? I know it sounds odd but, i'm also wandering why nowbody until now in this discussion has mentioned the point. (hey,google is way to big, dont you think? ) Tim

this is an incredibly complicated question. To summarize very briefly, under the currently proposed settlement, as far as US readers and US publishers are concerned, the general public, they will be able to read free works that are out of copyright, and works no longer available from publishers and whose copyright holder does not object, or cannot be identified or located; for other books, they will be permitted to read small excerpts. I would expect that most current scientific works will not be in the scheme, though perhaps older editions will. If you wish to read current medical books, there are a limited number of large public libraries which have them--as well as most universities for those connected with the university. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google_Book_Search" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.169.247 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoint of an author

I find the settlment an outrage they are offering the author $60 for something I spent years on. Are they insane? I would be crazy to allow them to rip me off like this. They published my entire book without my permission and I am offered a lousey sixty bucks. I will call Amazon and see what their offer is and opt out of google. I hate one thing most of all and that is a thief. The premmis that only 20% of the book is viewable is a lie, clearing cookies allows the user to go back and read a different portion of the book. Google has ticked me off to the max. Who in their right mind would ever waste their time writing a book when they know that Google will infringe on their copyright because they are a huge corporation with lots of power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhere (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

After a certain point hard copies often don't sell; having an easily available online copy actually might spur hard copy sales of people who get interested but like to have the book in hand. Hopefully competitors will arise who might even pay more, since the monopolistic aspect is most problematic, even thought the contract specifies that it is NOT an exclusive contract.

Regarding the article itself, it's rather POV in NOT explaining Google's response after Nov 13 (whatever it was) and only repeats the Open Book Alliance complaints. Perhaps the editor could at least explain what Google actually did that did not fulfill OBA's requirements. ThanksCarolMooreDC (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and other issues

I updated the article, and I tried to fix the NPOV issues by removing some weasel words and repetitive statements. Potential issues that still need to be worked on:

• Lots of references to interested sources (Authors Guild)
• There is a longer description of the Open Book Alliance's criticism than the settlement itself...
• Need to expand anti-trust issue and add description of DoJ investigation
• Add a section on foreign impact?

Cheers, Stephen (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Proposed settlements" section

Greetings!

Reading through this article, I'm having difficulties with a specific section: the Proposed settlements one.

The section begins by giving a brief overview of the settlement, its amendment, and Judge Chin's response to it all. I personally like having this little overview; it's like this section has its own lead section lol. However, just like the issue with the top-heavy lead sections that contain info not found elsewhere in the article, that last paragraph of this overview contains information that's nowhere to be found in the section talking about the settlement's rejection and what happened afterwards.

I moved what I could of the paragraph to the later section, and gave a sentence somewhat summing up the contents of the paragraph I moved.

I also spent some time fixing up and editing some references. In specific, I found a reference with a dead link, but was able to find it on the Wayback Machine, so I used it. I also found another reference that only said "SDNY, May 31, 2012". I, not being a lawyer or, indeed, in the legal profession, at all, had no idea what that meant. I added a {{Specify}} template to it.

In general, I feel like this whole entire section could use some more cleaning up; it's not necessarily lacking in information, although extra information would definitely be welcomed, but it's hard to get through. It's content could be reorganized and rewritten, its sources verified, and, honestly, I feel it uses a number of terms and language that really only makes sense for those in the legal profession.

I added a {{Technical}} template to the section. I may also add a cleanup tag or two to the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaykeBird (talk • contribs) 07:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Google Book Search Settlement Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090727034012/http://www.eff.org:80/issues/privacy/google-book-search-settlement to http://www.eff.org/issues/privacy/google-book-search-settlement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Google Book Search Settlement Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015172156/http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/authors-guild-v-google/Authors%20Guild%20v%20Google%2009202005.pdf to http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.attachment/authors-guild-v-google/Authors%20Guild%20v%20Google%2009202005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106021527/http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/authorsguildsuesgooglecitingmassivecopyrightinfringement.html to http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/authorsguildsuesgooglecitingmassivecopyrightinfringement.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713224529/http://www.publishers.org/main/Copyright/attachments/40_McGraw-Hill_v_Google.pdf to http://publishers.org/main/Copyright/attachments/40_McGraw-Hill_v_Google.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100221231441/http://blogs.buffalonews.com/artsbeat/2010/02/google-books-settlement-fairness-hearing-underway.html to http://blogs.buffalonews.com/artsbeat/2010/02/google-books-settlement-fairness-hearing-underway.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613014355/http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf to http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aallnet.org/main-menu/Publications/spectrum/vol-17/No-7/google-books.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol125_authors_guild_v_google.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225000524/http://www.asja.org/google/ to http://www.asja.org/google/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Google Book Search Settlement Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609220653/http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2770 to http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2770
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113145948/http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html to http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111227063653/http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/ to http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051007010920/http://www.opencontentalliance.org/ to http://www.opencontentalliance.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)