The Wall Street Journal has a critique by Lynn Chu of the future of publishing based on Google's settlement with a class of authors and others. The settlement is subject to another hearing on June 11, 2009, but the opt out date is May 5.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819841868261921.html

It involves the creation of the Book Rights Registry (BRR), that will monitor and redistribute the author's portion of Google's book sales and other income. Rather than the internet streamlining distribution it is adding another middle man, which can also consume a share of any money. Will the BRR turn into another RIAA but in bed with Google?

She claims that digital publishers' and distributors' costs are minor compared to physical publishers and that authors should be entitled to a larger, not smaller, share from the sales and use of their works.

Now The New York Times has a story by Miguel Helft.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/technology/internet/04books.html?_r=1

His concern is that Google may gain exclusive online rights to publish orphan books.

"Determining which books are orphans is difficult, but specialists say orphan works could make up the bulk of the collections of some major libraries."

"Critics say that without the orphan books, no competitor will ever be able to compile the comprehensive online library Google aims to create, giving the company more control than ever over the realm of digital information."

"Most of the critics, which include copyright specialists, antitrust scholars and some librarians, agree that the public will benefit. But they say others should also have rights to orphan works. And they oppose what they say amounts to the rewriting, through a private deal rather than through legislation, of the copyright rules for millions of texts."