Pointer to GoogleLibrary discussion

Donna Wentworth at Copyfight excerpts and links to discussion on libraries, copyright and GooglePrint. 

Could Google be considered a library? I don't think so, but you can read further discussion there and decide for yourself.  If Google is a library, [which it isn't*], it would not be liable for infringement if it made a good faith fair use assessment of GoogleLibrary.

Okay, I'm the only one I know calling it GoogleLibrary - but that's to distinguish it from the larger GooglePrint program, which is largely a publisher-authorized program indexing in-print titles.

---------

*Added later - that is, legally, Google isn't a library with respect to copyright law. See discussion at Copyfight link above for more detail.

Comments

[Karen Ellis]

FYI: Google temporarily stopped digitizing.

[Dr. Klaus Graf]

Yo are definitively not the only one, see
http://log.netbib.de/archives/2005/08/15/googleprint-wird-ausgesetzt/
http://wiki.netbib.de/coma/GooglePrint

It would be interesting for me to know wether some one knows more than the three PD books available at Google.

Beside the well known Mabie
http://print.google.com/print?id=Y7GAaIDnfW0C (Darwin)
http://print.google.com/print?id=T9DXaJK_36kC (Middle Class)

[Mary]

Hey Walt! Good to see you. The liability for damages is significantly less. Liability can go down to zero for a library, archive or nonprofit education institution if there's a good faith fair use evaluaton. Google isn't an archive or nonprofit education institution either, though.

What an amazing investigation of the biblioblogosphere! Thanks for including LibraryLaw blog.

[walt crawford]

You're not the only one who has called it GoogleLibrary. And I'm pleased to see that you have the same take on whether Google can be reasonably called a library without grotesquely distorting the meaning of "library" that buys slightly less stringent copyright treatment. (You can call a cat a horseshoe, but that doesn't make it one...)