From the declaration of Daniel Clancy in support of the motion for approval:
To date, Google has Digitized over twelve million books, and intends to continue Digitizing books in the future.
To date, Library-Registry Agreements have been signed by the University of Wisconsin, Stanford University, and the University of Virginia.
It would be technologically burdensome to implement the exclusion of Inserts on a piecemeal basis, rather than from all Display Uses, because it would require the maintenance and tracking of numerous versions of a given Book, one for each Display Use, each containing only those Inserts which may be used in that Display Use. Such piecemeal exclusion would also be frustrating to users.
Google has received metadata from 48 libraries.
Google pays approximately $2.5 million per year to license metadata from 21 commercial databases of information about books.
Google has gathered 3.27 billion records about Books, and analyzed them to identify more than 174 million unique works.
Because of the unstructured nature of most data available on the web, it would have been infeasible to attempt to use the Google search engine to generate a list of class members to whom notice was to be sent, and such an attempt would be error-prone. Similarly, because of “optical character recognition” errors and the unstructured nature of the data, it would have been infeasible and error-prone to attempt to derive class member contact information from Google’s scans of individual books.