Great point.
Michelle Richmond

An alternative — and in my opinion rather more constructive view given that it concurs with that of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, is that Google’s actions (and Amazon’s “look inside” which is in effect the same) in fact protect author’s income by making their works discoverable. Note that Google is not making the entire text of in-copyright works available for download. Indeed, on your point about libraries (and leaving aside the article’s crassly condescending remark that libraries are for the poor), consider this from the Court’s ruling, which all but paraphrases your own:

Google’s provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement.

I doubt that you want to destroy what little income authors derive from the current copyright system by wanting to change the law relating to such things as fair use and transformative works. I suggest you consider the wider implications of what you are wishing for.

Perhaps it would be useful also to consider the context here. To quote Rick Falkvinge:

The purpose of the copyright monopoly is clear: it’s worded quite explicitly in the United States Constitution, article 8. Its purpose is “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. The purpose is not for anybody to get rich, or make a living, or paid at all. The purpose is and was always to benefit the public. To generate progress, with the implicit meaning of making that progress available to everyone (or it wouldn't be progress in any meaningful sense of the word).
One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.