Nickname: Sunshine

Review: Scanning each page of a book is the wrong thing for internet useage. Titles of books in different groupings should be enough for Google.

Date reviewed: May 24, 2007 10:05 PM

Nickname: Mark Poppy

Review: This is not a case of putting full text online. If a publisher does not allow full text, then the only think that would be shown is a small portion of text. If a publisher opts-out completely, then no text would be shown. This doesn't undermine book sales at all, and only allows users to figure out what book they want.

Date reviewed: Dec 6, 2006 2:51 AM

Nickname: Zechariah

Review: It seems that this offers a world of benefits to people who are interested in the information. The problem lies in why would anyone write anything if they cannot profit from it. Why not allow free posting of information where the copyright has expired? Why not some kind of advertising on each page that is read? Why not some kind of minimal royalty for access to this info? This is what made VCR tapes viable. You could rent a movie for the fraction of its cost. If it was good, then you could buy it. It created a win-win scenario for everyone. Book sales would probably increase as a whole if people could peruse an unlimited number of books per month and then have some kind of deal with Amazon to ship the book to them if they want to buy it. What happens to old books that you've already read? C'mon people think win-win. Technology is not going to stop. You have to think of clever ways to make it profitable. Libraries are becoming dinosaurs anyway.

Date reviewed: Oct 30, 2005 6:10 AM

Nickname: ConcernedParty

Review: Do you not see that by making available copyrighted text books online, textbook sales WOULD diminish? Hence, as in the case of illegally downloading music and movies, several people would lose money and possibly jobs: authors, editors, production staff, printers, binders, distributors . . .the list is amazing. I know that it takes at least 20 people to put a book out . . . and one to scan that book and make it public without permission. This is why copyright laws exist--to save the little people.

Date reviewed: Oct 27, 2005 12:09 AM

Nickname: Dwight

Review: I love the idea of making information more accessible. At the same time, the arguments the publishers use (copyright infringement) is an old one--used successfully in music (Napster, anyone?) and unsucessfully in VCRs (remember the video industry telling courts that we'd all copy movies on our VCRs and it would doom them all?)

Date reviewed: Oct 22, 2005 4:52 PM

Nickname: FLYMERLIN

Review: Simply excellent!!! I totally agree with AAP to reign in "Google" !!!!!

Date reviewed: Oct 21, 2005 11:49 PM

Nickname: spikelee

Review: I think it is the best idea anybody ever came up with since the invention of the computer. Simply beautiful.

Date reviewed: Oct 21, 2005 6:25 PM

Nickname: nork

Review: Google and EFF are copyright haters. Eric Schmidt has a horrible track record as a CEO. I support the rights of copyright owners of creative works to keep Google's greedy mitts busy in the Web chaos and leave the real media business to professionals.

Date reviewed: Oct 20, 2005 9:34 PM

Nickname: Morgan

Review: Google, whether or not they make a profit on such a venture, should be helped by everyone to create an online resources as powerful as this. It is madness to want to stop such a extraordinary idea that will help so many for maybe a few dollars. I don't believe it will impact on book sales, especially the way its all planned out by Google. Its simply about shoving their weight around. A stupid thing to be seen as folly in the coming Information Age generations. I suppose there were those who wanted to stop the invention of the telephone as well!

Date reviewed: Oct 20, 2005 7:39 PM

Nickname: yneuwied

Review: I do research, and I need all the help I can get, including from Google.

Date reviewed: Oct 20, 2005 7:22 PM