Talk:Open Library

Template
New Template:OL author. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Inline references from OpenLibrary
Can inline references from OpenLibrary be accepted as evidence that a publisher existed? Or should an article cite the books of the publisher instead?--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I added in references to everyone's name at least once. It's really difficult ot know who's who without that. Hawaiisunfun (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

article about the legality of this site

 * The Internet Archive’s Open Library is violating authors’ copyrights very relevant to this article. Igottheconch (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Might be relevant if discussed in a few WP:RS. Same blogger noted on 2017/12/19: "I still haven’t seen any mention of this on news sites"" Deleted. See WP:SELFPUBLISH -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

launch date
I cannot confirm the given date from the cited sources. Aaron Swartz' weblog has an announcement from June 16, 2007, though. Where does that date come from?--Reseletti (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wayback Machine has a capture of demo.openlibrary.org from June 26, 2007. Russian Wikipedia gives 2005 without naming a source.--Reseletti (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add more info or new page for Mek Karpeles and others
Since he is the Open Library Program Lead, right under Aaron Swartz in the hierarchy on https://openlibrary.org/about/people.en, more should be said about him either here or as a new page. What are some proposals for moving forward? More info on the Open Library page, a new page, or not to add more info anymore? Hawaiisunfun (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Maybe adding them in as key figures in the information box of the Open Library page could help out too.Hawaiisunfun (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"made a fuss"
The Copyright violation accusations section contains this sentence:


 * Individual authors reported that Open Library had ignored multiple DMCA takedown notices until after they made a fuss on the Internet Archive blog.


 * The phrase "after they made a fuss" seems either non-neutral or unencyclopedic.


 * The source is a blog post by writer Victoria Strauss "for Writer Beware", which is a writers' group Strauss is the co-founder of. It's probably unreliable because of WP:RSSELF.

Detýnn (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Functionality
I have been a member/subscriber for some time, but I have never been able to borrow a book. Maybe this is because I am in a "developing country." Is there any discussion of whether OL works outside of, say the U.S. and India?79.134.37.83 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Open Library Fraudulent Sites
There is at least one site claiming to be Open Library that is actually a scam, operating out of, and instead 'selling' subscriptions to sportiveguide.com, which after a 1 day trial turn into about a $60/year annual subscription. Not sure how best to include this in the wiki entry, or at all, but wanted to at least add it here, for folks who might check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.188.190 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violation accusations
The "accusations" are demonstrable, and not debated: the assertion that what the fake "library" is doing falls under "fair use" is. The fake "library" is violating basic, fundamental copyright law as well as international copyright treaties. "Open Library" is a piracy website: this is demonstrable, and has been found to be true. Quoting The Authors Guild https://twitter.com/AuthorsGuild/status/1640413426336800769


 * The court’s ruling vindicates six years of our advocacy against Open Library’s illegal scanning and distribution of books, finding the Internet Archive’s “fair use” defense to be entirely without merit.

In my opinion, it is not possible that the people at "Open Library" believed what they were and are doing falls under "fair use:" the assertion is prima facie not true and an insult to the court.

Libraries pay content creators; "Open Library" does not pay content creators. what they have done and are doing is prima facie criminal, and the perpetrators should be indited; charged; arrested; allowed a jury trial or summary judgement; and if found guilty, spend a few years in prison.

This is not a First Amendment issue; this is not a library issue; this is a criminal issue.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/91795-hachette-v-internet-archive-all-our-coverage.html Desertphile (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * cool story 73.47.149.91 (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)