I like how the article goes from implying that these books were already easy enough to access ("...that would otherwise rot in such obscure libraries as Harvard

I like how the article goes from implying that these books were already easy enough to access ("...that would otherwise rot in such obscure libraries as Harvard, Oxford, and the University of California...") to complaining that Google will have an effective monopoly on making these books available ("...a deliberate attempt to sucker the public into letting Google have a monopoly on millions of digitally archived books."), mixed in with some snide remarks implying that the books being scanned probably aren't worth much anyway ("We're sure graduate students everywhere will thrill to the prospect of reading first drafts of Henry Miller erotica or something."). So basically, Google is wrong for having exclusive rights to books, except that anyone can go look at them anyway, and it's bad because they'll be the gatekeeper of knowledge that isn't worth much. Wait, what?