Google and the world brain
In 2002 Google began the most ambitious Internet project ever conceived: a massive worldwide digitalization of books whose altruistic watertight argument promised access to worldwide information, 24 hours from any device connected to the net. In order to get the books for scanning, Google contacted the best libraries in the world and, as expected to benefit all mankind and not to make any profit out of it, all agreed to work with enthusiasm.
As early as 1937, H. G. Wells, well-known science fiction pioneer, published a series of essays under the name of World Brain predicting the 
emergence of a new, free, efficient and permanent world encyclopedia that would create a full global backup of mankind knowledge, ideas and achievements and help all citizens to make a better use of universal information for the sake of world peace. It was a prescient definition of the pharaonic project Google would propose many years later, the nobility and selflessness of which would find no oppositors.
However, when Google’s database already had more than 10 million books, a huge number of worldwide authors and copyright owners of books could see that their books were in the net without their permission and not being assigned a single penny in royalties. Over 60% of the books that Google has published to date have a copyright worth of US$150,000 per book which no one has paid. The authors claim that although only fragments of their books appear as a result of the searches, anyone knowing what the repeated keywords in the book are can get the issue almost entirely.
On the one hand, Google persists that it doesn’t profit from the book’s content, whose royalties is being claimed, and insists that removing content from the google engine would be censoring; on the other hand, intellectuals and politicians around the world are trying to stop the project through court process alleging that Google could have commercial intentions. The most reluctant to the project argue that if all knowledge of mankind was in the database of a private entity, we humans would become a sort of hostages willing to pay any price in exchange for information. I do not think that the reaction is too angry at all.
Scholars and politicians around the world warned of the danger involved in the monopoly Google pursuits and, for me, the idea of the whole world’s knowledge in private hands is far from nice and appealing. Some interviewees, such as German Chancellor and a former director of the National Library of France, argue that Google is "not aware of all its choices." They refer to the right of authors regarding their books and the right to privacy we all have and that google constantly violates.
In 2007, Street View was launched, first in the United States and soon after in every continent. Just like the global database, Street View was also a promisig Google initiative that collapsed. Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information found out that its cars were collecting emails, photos, chats and even private passwords from homes on Wi-Fi networks. Germany has already sanctioned the company four times for it with fines of around US$ 180,000. Still, each of them doesn't even represent 0.002 percent of the US$ 10,700 million profit made by the company every year. The liberties that Google has taken seem unlimited and it’s creepy to receive advertising then and again while you are typing on your computer or Facebook profile on precisely the issue which is being advertised.
I think the goal of Google is not only ambitious but greedy too and that the collection and handling of information of any kind, as long as it does not 
infringe the right to privacy, should be conducted by an NGO. Besides the invaluable advantage that a 24-hour-available compilation of all the knowledge that has been in the history of mankind would be, as a translator, I would save a huge amount of working hours. Anyway, I would never, under any circumstances, pay to obtain summaries, parts of a book or complete books if I don’t have the author’s consent. I think the only way to fight for free information for all is that nobody pays for it to any private company in order to avoid monopoly and information traffic. In my 
opinion, tougher copyright laws are needed but they have many nuances worthy of careful study. Perhaps writers could set up an NGO in charge of the database world, or they may not. The thing is that copyright is an extremely delicate subject on which even experts pronounce themselves with extreme caution and I don’t consider myself suitable to elucidate the myriad of loopholes copyright laws have.
I simply say that, from my point of view, the creation of a non-profit global database would be necessary, useful, advantageous and would change mankind education and mentality because, like Cicero said more than two thousand years ago, "who forget their history are doomed to repeat it."
Sources:
www.tv3.cat/videos/4614571/Google-i-el-cervell-mundial
thoughtmaybe.com/google-and-the-world-brain/