Glad it's been rejected. Google is wanting to circumvent US copyright law by creating law through the civil courts. The civil courts are not the appropriate ven

Glad it's been rejected. Google is wanting to circumvent US copyright law by creating law through the civil courts. The civil courts are not the appropriate venue to change copyright law. In addition, the idea of seizure of out of print or allegedly orphaned works, which has been promoted as a cause in conjunction with articles about this case, disturbs me. Someone can start selling my out of print publications just because I choose not to publish them for any reason? Well then, why shouldn't I also be able to stroll on into Google then and take home any orphan computers they have that they aren't currently using. Or head into my neighbor's garage and collect the orphan tools there that he has forgotten about. If someone wants to publish an in-copyright work, they need the explicit permission of the copyright holder. The issue of "can't be found" is not relevant because they are not even trying. Instead they set up a clearing house that collects money and which the author then has to take-or-leave regarding royalties, with no negotiation possible, and if they don't fill out all the right paperwork they get nothing. Why should I be forced to submit to a bureaucracy of some organization I don't like and don't want anything to do with because some judge has decreed them my agent for working with Google Book sales? Glad the judge said no to that nonsense.