Talk:Open Content Alliance

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

- Microsoft To Join Book-Search Alliance (October 26, 2005 International Herald Tribune]
- Building the Universal Library (May 18, 2006 Search Engine Watch)
- Google's Moon Shot: The quest for the universal library February 5, 2007 article in The New Yorker
- The Universal Library and Other Book Digitization Projects (Search Engine Watch)
- Yahoo Search announcing Open Content Alliance
- Video from Open Content Alliance Launch, Oct 2005

Conceived

Was it really conceived in response to the closed nature of google's book search and is it aim really to keep books in the public domain or just to blunt a potential competitive advantage and PR gain by google?Logicnazi 22:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the abscence of any response I'm editing the page to say things a bit more neutrally. Logicnazi 16:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not created in direct response to the Google Settlement.

Microsoft

Now that MSN has stopped its scanning efforts, is it still a member of the OCA? Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, the OCA website doesn't list "members", rather just "contributors" (past and present). Updated article accordingly. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Alliance

Open Book Alliance should not redirect here. They are different groups, with diffferent purposes. OBA is a direct response to the Google Settlement and the OCA is not.

A new page for OBA should be created.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Open Content Alliance. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]