If I am reading correctly, you are objecting to the idea that authors (and other artists) should automatically trade reproduction rights for exposure. I suppose I should point out that this debate is going on in Congress today, where the RIAA wants terrestrial radio stations to pay performance royalties. It was the argument for paying public performance fees when commercial establishments piped in radio music or played tapes over intercom systems.
I don't think it is intrinsically insulting, or devaluing the work, to make the offer of exposure. It is a typical problem of one side (arguably both sides) overvaluing what they have to offer. There is a value to being reprinted on my blog, based on its readership. Some people value that, others don't. If I approached someone I thought might value it enough to give me the work for free, I may be overvaluing my asset or undervaluing his. But it is no more or less an insult than offering any low price (or demanding a high one) through ignorance or inability to to value the asset.
The Google question is different, because it goes to the nature of the right. The right of authors to exclusive control over their writings is one defined by Congress and also by other limits. I cannot paint a mural on the side of my house, then object when people stand in the public street to see it -- or seek to charge them admission. As long as they stand on the public street, they can look at the outside of my house. They can even photograph it, because I have chosen to display my painting on a surface (the outside of my house) that people have always been free to photograph. If I don't like it, it is my responsibility to cover the painting or -- perhaps better -- not paint it on a publicly viewable surface.
Since the first days of the internet, publicly available content has been searchable. It is just like broadcast television before 1976, when Congress changed the law. If you put something out there, we assume you want people to find it. The question of the benefit of exposure is really a policy question as Congress decides how to balance the new rights. Should we favor those owners who would prefer greater control, and make it easier for them to exercise such control, recognizing that this imposes a burden on the many creators who want exposure but who would have difficulty signaling this? Or should we favor those whom we believe want exposure and place the burden on those who would prefer to exercise greater control to use technological means to hide themselves or refrain from using the medium?
As to substance
I don't think it is intrinsically insulting, or devaluing the work, to make the offer of exposure. It is a typical problem of one side (arguably both sides) overvaluing what they have to offer. There is a value to being reprinted on my blog, based on its readership. Some people value that, others don't. If I approached someone I thought might value it enough to give me the work for free, I may be overvaluing my asset or undervaluing his. But it is no more or less an insult than offering any low price (or demanding a high one) through ignorance or inability to to value the asset.
The Google question is different, because it goes to the nature of the right. The right of authors to exclusive control over their writings is one defined by Congress and also by other limits. I cannot paint a mural on the side of my house, then object when people stand in the public street to see it -- or seek to charge them admission. As long as they stand on the public street, they can look at the outside of my house. They can even photograph it, because I have chosen to display my painting on a surface (the outside of my house) that people have always been free to photograph. If I don't like it, it is my responsibility to cover the painting or -- perhaps better -- not paint it on a publicly viewable surface.
Since the first days of the internet, publicly available content has been searchable. It is just like broadcast television before 1976, when Congress changed the law. If you put something out there, we assume you want people to find it. The question of the benefit of exposure is really a policy question as Congress decides how to balance the new rights. Should we favor those owners who would prefer greater control, and make it easier for them to exercise such control, recognizing that this imposes a burden on the many creators who want exposure but who would have difficulty signaling this? Or should we favor those whom we believe want exposure and place the burden on those who would prefer to exercise greater control to use technological means to hide themselves or refrain from using the medium?