Basically, I think that google is run by a couple of hugely wealthy nerds who really do just want to do good things. Google isn't trying to steal copyright away from anyone, they're trying to prevent a bunch of human art and knowledge from disappearing in the basement of some demolished library somewhere.

One of the major things that people who are against what google is doing here don't seem to understand is that they don't gain exclusive rights to the book, they gain distribution rights to their own digital copies (which they will still have to license from the copyright holders if they want to sell). This isn't different than if I were to go home right now and start scanning my book collection, then go to their respective publishers and try to work a deal with them to distribute the digital copy.

I will admit that I might be horribly wrong about this, but this is how I understand it works...

What? Wouldn't that just mean that if somebody wanted to do the same thing that they would have to...do the same thing?

Also, I should not I'm all for google books. I think that copyright/patents no longer need to exist in the modern world, but if they are going to stay around they need to apply to everyone equally.

Please don't argue the naive copyright shouldn't exist because my-head-is-stuck-so-far-in-the-sand-I-hit-rock-and-forgot-common-sense angle. With hollywood virtually cloning every successful movie that has ever existed, do we really want to give them a free pass to actually clone every successful movie that has ever existed? As for every successful book/movie/TV franchise to ever exist, well they'd be gone out the window with masses of meaningless fan-wank shot out by every publisher known to man trying to make a dollar. Copyright has an important clause in it of preventing derivative works by unauthorised people, this means that Harry Potter remains being written by Rowling and actually ends in a way fans are likely to actually enjoy rather than see a Harry Potter: Failed To Graduate Again - New Mystery Edition!

By removing copyright you negatively effect the common person more than you positively affect them. For all I know you could be a fantastic photographer, I myself have worked as a reviewer and have sold my work, you as a photographer have all the rights to sell your photographs no matter where you've posted them. Do you really want to give any company permission to take your photographs from your Flickr account and use them in a national campaign without your permission? Or would you prefer to get the $20,000 check that those license purchases usually come with?

The RIAA and MPAA are the problem, not copyright. The better way to resolve this problem is to reform copyright to limit actions taken on the copyright holders behalf without the copyright holders permission. Legally speaking the copyright holder has to be the person to file the claim, however due to the licensing agreements musicians sign with their label they're actually giving license authority to the MPAA too, which they actually don't agree too.

As for your photography example, someone taking your photograph and using it wouldn't be able to say that they took it. That would be fraud. If they listed the credits for the picture you would be credited. Now of course it would be great if 20000$ were deposited in your checking account, and I'd love it if the law allowed me to charge people walking on the street in front of my house for the pleasure my house gives them, but I can't.

So yes copyright is a problem it restricts what I can do with ideas, not with physical property. My use of ideas and data that you've transferred to me does not limit you in any way you can still do everything that you could before. The entire concept of intellectual property is fundamentally flawed, and it was able to exist when the means of copying material were expensive, now that it is cheap the flaws are beginning to show and the advantages content creators have been given is going to go away. Imagine if you had to ask permission and pay licensee fees anytime you photographed something that was designed by a human. What to take a picture of that tree, well I planted it pay me 20000$, want to take a picture of a person drinking a glass of water pay me 20000$ for glass and 20000$ for the water that comes out of the tap.

But there is no reason for the guild to give them a better deal than they gave to Google, or if Google offered enough there is no need for the guild to offer them a license at all.

As opposed to, what exactly, how the publishers of the United States of Fictionalamerica do? Or did Le Guin really thought her publisher was a honest non-profit interested on sharing and expanding the public domain?

* Most authors weren't represented in the Google Book Settlement, though they will be severely affected by it.

* The settlement is extremely complicated, and it's difficult to put across all her objections in (say) the span of an interview.

* She does want a global digital library, but not under the control of a corporation like Google. Google of course acts in its own interest (and those of its shareholders), and is not even minimally under popular control.

I agree with these points. However, I wish she'd discuss (more than just in passing during an interview) a fair alternative to Google -- one which is free-as-in-freedom and compensates authors/staff. (Or did I miss it?) Because digitalization is very important, and authors' interests do conflict with those of consumers, under our economic system.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/blog/2010/02/conversation-ur...

But if they're ad-wording books that seems clearly unethical.