Talk:Google Books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 created[edit]

All talk pages have been moved to Talk:Google Books/Archive 1. Anarchyte (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Commercial aspects/monetization[edit]

I am curious that there is no discussion of commercial aspects of the operation at this time. Google is a for-profit operation and presumably either derives, or intends to derive in the future, a commercial return on its investment either through subscription services, advertising revenue or other means. Can someone who knows more about this aspect myself maybe introduce a relevant section to the page? Regards - TonyTony 1212 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge of Google Books Library Project[edit]

I have just boldly merged Google Books Library Project into this article. To be fair, the Library Project is the essence of Google Books. The other part of it, Partner Program, is associated with just a single paragraph of content. Which means there is a huge scope commonness between the two articles. They largely cover the same topic. This is exemplified as until now, half of the criticism (copyright issues) was predominantly covered at Google Books whereas the other half (academic criticism) was covered at Google Books Library Project. It makes sense to have a single consolidated article rather than two articles on the same subject. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have left out the three large quotations by librarians (copied off https://books.google.com/googlebooks/library/partners.html) as there's no need to include them. Per policy, large quotes should not be included unless there's a good reason to do that. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google Books. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

paragraphs needing rewrite[edit]

Under Copyright infringement, fair use and related issues the following paragraphs have numerous spelling and other issues.

In 2015 Authors Guild filed another appeal against Google to be considered by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Google won the case unanimously based on the argument that they were not showing people the full texts but instead snippets and there are not allowing people to illegally read the book.[105] In a report courts stated that they did not infringe on copy write laws as they were protected under the fair use clause.[106]
Authors Guild tried again in 2016 to appeal the decision and this time took their case to be considered by the Supreme Court. The case was rejected leaving the Second Circuits decision on the case in tact meaning that Google did not violate copy right laws.[107] This case also set a precedent for other case similar in regards to fair use laws as it further clarified the law and expands it. Such clarification is important in the new digital age as it effects other scanning projects similar to Google.[105]

Cheers. ◦◦derekbd◦my talk◦◦ 21:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

Where did most of the site's content? Why did it informally or secretly removed? Now, most of this article can be washed, as the site is almost empty place.--95.24.27.53 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This guy is right. Much of Google Book's searchable content disappeared sometime this month.113.29.228.198 (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Does this article help? (it's a bit of a long read to get to the main point) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/the-tragedy-of-google-books/523320/ ... quote: "Despite eventually winning Authors Guild v. Google, and having the courts declare that displaying snippets of copyrighted books was fair use, the company all but shut down its scanning operation." ... Any other info welcome Tony 1212 (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Google Books. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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