The problem seems to be that you misread my stance.
Except you've never said that before and I have, clearly and in many different contexts, for the last five pages or so.
Just take your lumps for not reading the thread you were replying to.
This is exactly what I'm talking about! ... Intellectual Property and Copyright definitions and concepts are shifting these days. They're not the same thing they were 100 years ago.
True enough. They are shifting and changing, and rightly so. I desperately hope that Google doesn't win the right to make copies of books without permission and profit from their use of them. That would spell the end of self-motivated innovation in the long run.
Incidentally, I only brought up Google's archiving functionality because that sort of activity could be declared illegal and not significantly impact the net. Whether it's been declared fair use or not isn't germain to the current discussion because it's not comparable to the print project, since Google is not planning to redistribute the books they're copying. Apples and Oranges.