I'm glad that Google thinks that information wants to be free. Do you think that they're not going to mind if people write programs on top of Google that strip out Googles adds and condense the results or maybe add fewer ads of their own? I think they will making noises about a compilation copyright.

While I think patents and copyrights are getting unreasonable extensions in the US, they shouldn't be eliminated for the benefit of a few rich computer companies. There should be a system such as ASCAP provides for radio stations. If Google was willing to pay a royalty based on usage to the publishers it might even allow those publishers to survive.

People who are obsessed with technology should get off their ass and go to their freakin' public library.

Damn, if things arn't easy enough!

Google can take this idea digitizing entire library collections and stuff it in the crapper. And to hell with copyright worries. What's overlooked is not everyone has internet access.

I work in an inner city San Francisco medical clinic that does not bill its clients. I can tell you, a full third of those individuals do not have internet access--in San Francisco.

What good is a digitized library collection going to do anyone who does not have internet access? There are computers at the library for a poor kid to use, you say. Is a building full of screen gazers and mouse clickers the future vision of a public library? Do people care if libraries just become obsolete? What's the point of public spaces . . . .

Anyhow, why does Google have to get in the act? I mean, puke, they are a private outfit. The online catalog OCLC (not "the OCLC"--hahaha) and a number of other online resources have been digitizing content for years and copyright issues have been dealt with. Even checking-out library books and consuming their content sans payment to the author has never been much of a problem.

Bottom line: If you have difficulty finding that one thing you must read, ask a librarian to find it for you. Easier to do, of course, because you don't need access to the internet.

Interested readers would do well to look up and compare the Google case to the Kinko's Copies case from the late 70s-early 80s. Many similarities are found, legal and philosophical.

Kinko's Copies stores located near universities offered a Professor Publishing service, creating xeroxed packets of articles, book chapters, etc., brought in by the professors, and paid for by the students. Of copyrighted works, Kinko's limited professors to 10% or less of books, magazines, etc. Kinko's claimed to operate in the "fair use" space, as the items were for educational purposes, constituted only a small portion of copyrighted works, and were for "the greater good." Later, Kinko's even had the professors sign forms explicitly stating that they would not have ordered the whole copyrighted work just to get the single chapter or article, thus Kinko's was not infringing on possible sales.

A group of publishers sued, and won big time. The basic point was that Kinko's was making money that rightly belonged to the copyright holders (who are publishers by the way, almost never individual authors). Even though Kinko's was, like Google, making available works that were out of print, which the publishers had ceased to make money from, the judge said the money still belonged to the copyright holders. That's the way the law reads, and Google would do well to heed those lessons.

Other similarities, by the way, were the idea of "new technology" threatening the publishers; even though xeroxing had been around for a while, Kinko's formed the first big money-making threat using the new technology. Other similarities involve people copying copyrighted works for "personal use" a concept which, by the way, has no legal basis at all, whether by xerox machine or napster.

I'm not trying to take a side here, I'm just saying Google might do well to heed what happened to Kinko's, which took a big hit, and struggled for a long time after the decision.

Following up on my first letter, as a response to people suggesting that Google Print should be a for-pay service:

This does nothing for us in the developing world. As it is, the best education in my country can be had only by those who can afford it. The Internet has wonderfully served as an equalizer, but it is not enough because I have to purchase the journal articles and books I find through search engines, even those I just to review beyond the abstracts.

Minimum wage in my country is approximately $5 a day. I'm sure a minimum wage worker will not even consider paying for Google Print. (Or iTunes, or any other for-pay Internet service.)

So again, quality information becomes available only to those who can afford it. Thank you, so-called Internet Revolution.

Writers, musicians, and other artists need to get paid. How am I supposed to create the stuff that keeps people going if I'm waiting tables 70 hours a week? And what happens if I'm 60 and can't go touring anymore? Shortening the copyright period robs my pension. I've taken huge risks in my life to get where I am now (which, by the way, is still relatively nowhere), and I do it because I love to create. Please don't enslave me any deeper to the minimum wage-payers.

On a side note, I like the idea of iTunes Music store, but thanks to record label greed, musicians on there make somewhere in the neighborhood of half of what they make for the same product sold on a CD. With no distribution and reduced promotion costs for shelf space, shouldn't artists be entitled to a higher percentage than the measly 5% that the labels are giving them?

"Information Should Be Free" is a nice sounding slogan, but what if the person who generated the information put some effort into it? Should they be income-free?

Suppose that I spend my year growing food and, at the end of the season, set up a farmstand to sell my produce. If someone comes up and says "Give me those tomatoes. Food should be free!" I doubt if a single reader is going to question my right to send this person on their way or, if necessary, call in my local law enforcement. Now I know that farmers works a whole lot harder than writers, but they do have one advantage. There's not a Google for Food that can come along and scan their tomatoes and distribute them freely over the web (largely to upper-middle-class dweebs who can easily afford the price of fresh or canned tomatoes anyway.)

Why should the rules be different for copyrighted works? A writer doesn't work as hard as a farmer, but still he or she puts in hours of work, and is entitled to the same legal protections as a farmer, or any other producer of tangible or intangible goods.

And "change is inevitable, bend over and take it like a man" is not a counterargument. Change isn't inevitable; change happens because someone has a bright idea and figures out how to make money from it, often "revolutionizing" our lives whether we want them revolutionized or not.