I was wrong. I did not follow the whole story. Apparently google deal was "loaded" and dangerous.
A couple of points picked up by The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/22/google_books_settlement_rejected/
which gives further pause for thought to those who believe Google is a
benefactor:
'...a deal that threatened to rewrite American copyright law and give Google
exclusive rights to so-called orphaned works...'
'...the deal "would give Google a de facto monopoly over unclaimed works"....'
'... foreign copyright holders need not register with the US to maintain their
rights stateside, but under the terms of Google's settlement, authors could not
protect themselves from the settlement without explicitly registering....'
Those who urge changes in copyright law should be careful whose banner they
stand behind. Altruism is a rare beast anyway, and as proposed by Google it was
very, very loaded.
It is certainly true that there would be advantage in keeping works available;
but in the days of POS and ebooks it does not need a voracious giant to put each
work back on the market. Gutenberg Press already offers one truly generous way
to do it; there are examples of more commercial approaches brought to this and
other lists by individuals or small companies.
Knowledge yes; de facto monopoly [Judge Chin's words] no.
