I decided it would be fun to occasionally dip into the mailbag and share some of the feedback we've been getting about the new Galleycat. For example, an anonymous reader writes in concerning Friday's report from the NYPL Google debate:

"'So it's like saying that the White Sox should pay the Louisville Slugger people a royalty for putting their bats to such great use?'... Wha? Clear which side you're on, Ron."

Oh, good, I'd hate for there to be any confusion on that score. Actually, I think if there was one position that I was most sympathetic to over the course of the evening, it was Lawrence Lessig's concern that the fight between Google and the publishing-industrial complext won't make it to the courtroom. He recently wrote about this in Wired:

"A rich and rational (and publicly traded) company may be tempted to compromise - to pay for the 'right' that it and others should get for free, just to avoid the insane cost of defending that right. Such a company is driven to do what's best for its shareholders. But if Google gives in, the loss to the Internet will be far more than the amount it will pay publishers. It will be a bad compromise for everyone working to make the Internet more useful—and for everyone who will ultimately use it."

Our correspondent continues: "I thought Alder hammered Google and Lessig, and really did articulate the publisher's position. Best line of the night: "This isn't a race to break copyright before Google's next quarterly filing."

That was a pretty good one, though I kinda liked Lessig's "I know that in Washington, false statements are called rhetoric." And it's true: Adler did make a very forceful presentation, and certainly isn't afraid to mix it up. If I failed to fully convey that aspect of the evening's proceedings, I hope you'll forgive me.