It seems to me that the point Nick was trying to make is that the terms of the settlement are good, but that they put too much power in the hands of google. He wasn't talking about bad deals for authors. After all, the settlement was hammered out between google and large organizations representing the interests of authors, and the article said that the terms agreed on were better than those currently in place at Amazon.

Personally, I don't see this as an issue. We have very specific laws about how much power companies are allowed to have (antitrust / monopoly laws) and until google violates those, they're well within their bounds. I strongly disagree that this is something we should legislate away, or whatever. If the government or a non profit agency wants to create a universal library / bookshop, then let them. There's no reason google should be PREVENTED from doing so, however, unless in doing so they violate laws of fair business.

Seems to me that google is attempting to monetize books. In doing so, they stepped on the toes of rights holders, who subsequently worked out a satisfactory deal. If individuals don't like it, they can sell their books elsewhere; there's nothing saying they have to make use of google's library/marketplace. If google forces all other booksellers out of business and becomes the only option for authors, THAT'S when we'll have a problem. And we have laws to address that problem. Until that point, let google be google.