are you the judge who is going to decide this case?

> The phrase “All Rights Reserved” already makes it clear
> that the owner’s have “opted out”.

“fair use” is a right that google has every “right” to “reserve” too.
so, i ask you again, are you the judge who is going to decide this case?

> There is absolutely no intellectual dishonesty in what I’m saying here.

well, maybe you just have a knack for thinking you’re smarter than us.

-bowerbird

It is not the burden of the copyright owner to opt out of Google’s scheme; the burned is legally on Google to obtain permission first. That is how copyright law works.

Google didn’t provide the opt out notice until copyright owner’s raised a stink. It is not a sufficient legal answer. The phrase “All Rights Reserved” already makes it clear that the owner’s have “opted out”.

There is absolutely no intellectual dishonesty in what I’m saying here.

it’s intellectually dishonest to say google
“is unilaterally making that decision”
if you don’t immediately add that google
is explictly letting copyright owners “opt out”.

given that additional _fact_, it seems to me
that it is actually the copyright owners who
have total and complete power on the decision,
which — of course — is the _exact_opposite_
of the story you were trying to “spin” here…

-bowerbird

I strongly disagree that libraries should pay authors for loaning books; the library has to cover their costs, and this “pay-per-view” creates a variable cost that is difficult for under-funded libraries to budget for. Libraries exist for free access to its materials to benefit society as a whole. Turn libraries into rental stores and we seriously undermine their benefit, especially to the nation’s poorest.

up to 10 million downloads, anyway: $100,000.
at the point, the content merges into the culture,
so fame, rather than money, accrues from then on.

or you can write another, new book for your readers…

-bowerbird