-National Public Radio, September 2, 2009 by Laura Sydell
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112484311
“[The Authors Guild doesn’t] share the academic values that I think would lead people like me to prefer and want to maximize public access rather than maximize revenues,” she says. Though Google says authors can opt out of making people pay to see their work, Samuelson remains skeptical because some of the fine print in the agreement could be construed differently.
-KQED FM, September 8, 2009 Host Michael Krasny
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R909080900
“The problem is not that Google Books doesn’t offer us some very valuable access to public domain books right now and to books whose right’s holders have agreed to it. My letter doesn’t ask the judge to deny or reject the settlement altogether, but to say, ‘there are still some things that need to be dealt with.’ And so I’m asking him to condition his approval of the settlement.”
-Library Journal, September 10, 2009 by Norman Oder and Josh Hadro
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6695942.html
“Academic authors would, we believe, have insisted on much different terms than the Authors Guild did, especially in respect of pricing of institutional subscriptions, open access, annotation sharing, privacy, and library user rights to print out pages from out-of-print books,” Samuelson wrote.
-Berkeleyan, September 10, 2009 by Carol Ness
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2009/09/10_google-books.shtml
Samuelson has written that the settlement would amount to “a privately negotiated compulsory license designed to monetize millions of orphan works” for the benefit of Google, plus some—but not all—authors and publishers.