I was going to do a piece on Google today following an article entitled Scan This Book by Kevin Kelly in last Sunday's (May 14) New York Times Magazine which was an apologia for Google and its plans to digitise all the world's knowledge (without asking permission from copyright holders). The problem is that the article (of May 14) is now more than seven days old and the NYT charges for access to its archive. I couldn't be bothered to go to the hassle of paying - hence no in-depth review (which is probably a relief to you all). I was slightly pissed off at being asked to pay.

Nevertheless thank goodness the NYT company IS charging. The Times is trying to build an economically sustainable model to help pay for its present and future investments in web technology and editoprial standards and they are protecting copyright by establishing that content has a value.

It is strange that the NYT has adopted a strictly commercial and proper arrangement when it comes to protecting its own copyright - and yet it sees no inconsistency in supporting 'cool' Google which appear to be bent on undermining the very sort of commercial arrangements being developed by book publishers.

It is really a very strange world where those who are arrogant or mad enough to think they can build a 'perfect search engine (which) would be like the mind of God' (Google co-founder, Sergey Brin) are treated as cool and honourable and publishers such as Random House, Bloomsbury, Reed Elsevier, Blackwell, Macmillan etc are regarded as dinosaurs when they spend money and creativity developing new ways to support their authors and excite their readers. Go figure.

PS I've now found a link to the KK article. Enjoy but treat with care - it's full of assertions about Google's 'do no evil' sentiment. Never forget that Google is a huge ($90m revenue) public company whose job is to maximise returns to its shareholders.