Any author (or other creator) can post their inventions on the web in any way they choose, with or without protection. Copyright does not hinder them in any way from giving their works away for free. But copyright gives them the choice, and what Google was trying to do was take away that choice from authors by scanning absolutely everything without asking permission first.

What the controversy with Google boils down to is this: Google decided they could do whatever they wanted with other people’s copyrighted material, and then they rationalized it afterwards as being beneficial to authors. What’s next? Google worms into my computer, takes my latest book manuscript, and posts in on the web? Then they say “It’s ok, it’s for your own good – you’ll get great distribution, and you won’t be exploited by crooked publishers.” No. That’s not Google’s choice, it’s mine, and when they scan books they’re violating an author’s rights just as much. If they want to “do me a favour” and scan my works, all they have to do is ask.

Both these are important but limited in value. They are concepts predicated on the assumption that someone wants to buy – not read – a particular work.
The local ‘library’ is limited by budgetary and cultural preferences, they may also have their stock limited by borrower statistics, thus a ‘good’ book may be dumped asap and literary ‘garbage’ kept forever. A matter of ‘taste’ perhaps.
Then again, the supermarket mentality in regards to bookselling has come about precisely because of ‘taste’ and unsavoury dealings which do not favour the authors.
At least the internet brings and keeps books ‘available’ instead of rotting behind the stinking past their sell-by date cabbages.

Better to skip fifty cents (lucky man) than be totally ignored.

Dennis Greig