assume the question is serious armed conflict because there were a little skirmishes going on even as we speak.

but syria's armed conflict i think is very unlikely over the foreseeable future. it serves neither of their interests, and while it is quite fashionable to believe that nuclear proliferation is in all respects a bad thing i believe that the proliferation and that part of the world has stabilized the relationship between india and china and also between india and pakistan because they understand the costs of eight war are greater than the benefit. u.s. and china i think equally unlikely, maybe even more unlikely. china -- i have a definition of

ideology. on issues you take an extreme position and extremely resolve to hold them. the model was all ideology. china is no longer -- the chinese government is no longer idealogical. it is a petty dictatorship sustaining itself in power and it is very good at sustaining itself in power, so to the extent that there is an issue with china it is a purely internal issue, and that is that as more and more eletes rise in influence particularly in the coastal provinces the ability of the central government to sustain its control will become more difficult and they will have to choose either to liberalize and allow the is averse to have more say or crack down and choose to keep themselves in power at the expense of the economy and that could lead to an inclusion. i don't see this as happening in

the near term and i suspect they will be good at managing transition without an implosion, but that is where i would see a real danger, purely internally in china, and not between india and china over the u.s.. >> as a final question looking at the next ten years, are you optimistic or pessimistic? >> i am a hugely optimistic person. i believe that the nature of blatant self interest is such that it makes the behavior of people with predictable and therefore can be engineered and we can steer the world toward cooperative solutions to most of its big problems instead of the violence. if we have, and i don't mean my model in particular, but more people developing sophisticated ways to think about these problems analytically and to design the tools to help us make better decisions, and i do believe that is happening.

i believe political science is moving in the direction of more analytical less opinion durham and research, and that makes me optimistic the future will be more peaceful and prosperous future. >> bruce bueno de mesquita defines someone who takes the best available steps to ensure optimal what comes. whatever model you use i congratulate all of you who joined us this evening for having made an optional decision and for your perceptive questions. thank you so much. that concludes our program. on behalf of the world affairs council on books and, please join me in thanking bruce bueno de mesquita. [applause] did you know can view book tv programs online? go to booktv.org. type the name of the author,

book or subjected to the search area in the upper left-hand corner of the page. select the jobwatch link. now you can view the entire program. he might also explore the recently on book tv box or featured programs box to find and you recent and featured programs.

for copyright infringement in

2005. ms. kang presents details of the keys and terrorist katulis of the settlement. "the washington post" is the host of this 30 minute interview. >> host: cecilia kang of "the washington post," what is the goebel book settlement? >> guest: de google book settlement is part of a yearlong legal battle between google and publishers and authors over how we will all access and purchase books online. the way we are going to do that is going to change. the wind has changed everything. coming to your local library, go into your local university library in getting a book off the shelf is going to be altars in many ways by the web. you will still be able to do that but the web provides the opportunity in some ways the internet does for someone in kansas to get a hold of the really arcane companero book that recites some place in england within seconds over the

web. and the idea that google had in the first place was to make every single book in the world universally accessible. and they want to do that by scanning every book that exists in the world. there is a very ambitious project. they want to create the world's biggest on-line library. what i mean my library is on line you don't actually have to go some place. it doesn't reside anywhere. it would reside on the web. so it was a very ambitious project, and they started scanning books and then they realized that they ran into a bunch of legal issues. copyright and antitrust. >> host: what was google's our original motive? >> guest: the original motive is along the lines of their mission, which is users of the internet to access any information they want, video, books, music now, maps, anything, any information that travels over the web. and the project was nothing but

very ambitious. it was, again, to create -- to scan every single book in the world that i did some people estimate there may be 60 million books or so in the world that presiding different libraries and i think that is around the number the library of congress has. >> host: was there a profit motive? >> guest: certainly, and this is gets interesting. it intersects consumer use, legal concerns and regulatory issues. and it intersects commerce, and there is certainly commercial aspect. on one hand at the most basic level google and many companies on the web benefit from more people being on the internet and taxes and more information. the more you go on to the internet and look for where can i get a copy of the catcher in the right or where can i get a copy of jeanne austin's elma? if you make the searches and do it through particularly the google search engine that's good for google. that's good for internet

commerce. it's going to become good for whoever is going to sell the book like amazon and microsoft word dahuk or whoever it might become the next biggest web company that's going to sell a book. so there is certainly a commercial and interest involved. and google benefits both from the search part of it and it will benefit also from the distribution of the books. they haven't started yet, but they want to print these books. they are going to scan them first and then they will sell them to you if you want, too. and that is when a lot of the commercial interest came in and day of waste and said stop. we've got some major concerns over this settlement with authors and publishers because you, google, are going to have first dibs and more control than we think is fair. so that's the commercial aspect of it and that again interceptor with the regulatory review is taking place in washington at the department of justice and u.s. copyright office. and they are asking really hard

questions about how does this new web model fit into some of our regulatory prism and understanding how does this new web strategy by google to make information accessible and distribute, how does that create competition concerns? and how do you was a very legitimate public interest which is to make information accessible either for free or cheap. you know, that is a public goods. so it is an interesting difficult question in many ways washington regulators are facing. >> host: and we will talk about that. first the winded google start this project, when did lawsuits start, how many of the 60 million books have been scanned? >> guest: let's start from the beginning. google was a distorted from the very beginning from when google was founded in 1996, and foia google founders tossed around the idea why don't we start

digitizing books and library collections and how would that process go about and was in trouble to the formation of their search engine and the technology using spiders crawled the web and prioritize search results. when it really start to i would say above 2,002 when google started talking to the university libraries like university of michigan and other big library associations about starting to scan box and they began in about 2002. >> host: who did this? >> guest: google started scanning. >> host: in mountain view california? >> guest: exactly. with their technology. and what they did is they would -- the partnered with a lot of libraries because it was -- it took much libraries longer to scan on their own and google said what might take you the estimate of 1,000 years to scan your entire library would take us six so let us do it for you,

let's put it on the web. the benefits are enormous for the public for people to access this. so they started scanning of copyrighted works out of print and that's actually the big subject of debate right now and they started scanning public domain of books those that are not protected under copyright so that means they were printed before 1923, and then, which is completely legitimate and fine to do and then they also start scanning books that they partnered up with or the had agreements to to stand directly with publishers and authors. so they were just doing this on their own. and then what happened is some of these private interests, the authors and publish groups -- >> host: american association of publishers, the authors guilt. >> guest: the titans of the publishing world and authors world said what are doing? you can't be doing this, you didn't ask permission and you are violating copyright law

week. as a that was the first big obstacles they face and then what happened is they got together along with a lot of other groups and they filed their first class action lawsuit against google. so it period of about three years google and these parties fought out what should the rules be on copyright and digitizing these books and in other words making the books accessible on line. really interesting vexing questions arose of our copyright law we and what is fair use on the web. how to deal particularly with books that are out of print and books where we don't know where the authors are, who they are even. those books are called organ works, the books of the titles where either the owner of the rights of the book have not been found or has come for work or is simply on known. and there are big questions on what is fair use of those kinds

of those titles and to put those on line. the u.s. copyright office said what google was doing was a flat out violation of copyright law we. and a lot of critics, many critics both library association, other author groups and publishers said indeed, google, you've got to stop. what you were doing is accessing our work, scanning them and then putting up a good 20% of that book online in your search program called google bouck search and by doing that you are essentially without our permission and without cost benefitting using our work. so that's when the class action lawsuits arose. what happened after that, that was 2005. they came up with a settlement and 2008. and all of this, mind you, was kind of quiet. people were not really paying that much attention, at least the mainstream wasn't because it seemed sort of like a side project to what google was

doing. google's main business was search and was going to other interesting areas like mobile technology and the project on books seemed kind of small. but what we realized in the course of all of this is it intersects so many different parts of society. consumer use of books, the commercial aspect as you mentioned, peter, and regulatory issues so when they came up with their settlement in 2008, the other groups piped in notably of their library groups and competitors like microsoft, amazon and said this is definitely not fair, this violates copyright laws and the way that it's written could edge out the potential internet commerce companies like amazon, like microsoft and yahoo!, whoever may be the next big e-book reader developer company to get a piece of this action. and so, it became a big

commercial concern and that is when silicon valley and the rest of the internet corporate community realized this is not just a pet project, this could have really big dollar ramifications and that's when they picked up and said complain to justice and a lot of these critics and justice, department of justice started their own review in 2008 to see if this was a fair case and if indeed it was anti-competitive or not. >> host: okay, so if you go to the google book search what do you find? >> guest: you find 10 million books already scanned. >> host: 10 million? all previous to 1923 at this point? >> guest: it's a mix. about 2 million or before 1923. 2 million our books that google has contract with the authors or publishers or their rights holders to publish and put on line. the remainder, so that's what,

six left, 6 million, the majority of the remainder i should say are these disputed out of print copy write protected books that are part of the dispute. so as much as google and other parties at the settlement say that it's just the out of print copies, it's just a small slice of the book world that's still 60% of all the books they have online and about 60% of all the books that exist in the world according to some estimates. so this isn't a small, the dispute of these particular books that are out of print and copy write protected. and these kind of books -- it's not going to be the latest white series because that's in print. it's not going to beat jane austen because that's copyrighted protected and it's still probably in print. it's going to be lots of books, numerous books you probably have on your bookshelf now but also books -- >> host: what about new books? >> guest: new books are in print so these will not be part

of the dispute. >> host: could simon shuster harper collins megadeal with google and say yes and have publishers started doing that on their own? >> guest: absolutely -- >> host: separate from this agreement? >> guest: exactly. it is a complicated issue that the agreement only covers about 60% of all of the books that exist in the world today. this is according to some estimates in google and other parties would probably back that as well. but there are other books, there are other agreements taking place on this side between google and simon and schuster and these other companies for example to put the books on line so they are already working out their private deal as well. so, yes, the latest book twilight -- >> host: sarah palin -- >> guest: sarah palin's new look as well. google could be working with her publishers, on-line putting a 20% of the book for the readers to look at and see if they want to buy it and soon what google plans to do is have a button to say if you want to buy this book

or print this book press here and i will get you a google application. >> host: would these publishers today on the new books might they also be making side deals with microsoft or amazon? >> guest: absolutely, sure -- >> host: so this would not be exclusive to google? >> guest: exactly. it's not exclusive to google. what's happening currently with books coming out or are in the print cycle, there are several books hundreds of-years-old in the print cycle like ulysses and the -- >> host: are those copyright protected or book search? >> guest: they are not copyrighted because it is before 1923, but they are still in print which means -- well, i should say they are copyright protected and that their rights holders, the publishers that have rights to these books that are printing them currently are the rights holders said they are copyright protected. but those books are not part of the settlement. this -- the kind books research

books for example. so, i will make an example. like my father wrote his dissertation at the university of washington clam for me. he has a master's in fishery science. and his master's thesis recites a the university of washington. 1967 or 68 is when he published -- >> host: not a lot of demand? >> guest: i'm sorry to say, dad, a few hundred people have read it or maybe more. that's the kind of book that might. it's out of print, it's been printed ones, it's in the library of the university of washington and this is the kind of book that google would work with university of washington library to get access to come to scan and then eventually offer for print cord however you wanted to receive it and that's the other portion that's quite interesting about this is that the book world is changing so much that we don't know how people are going to access the

books. it may be on your phone. it tablets like the kindle free turkoman your laptop, a completely form we don't know. and that's why a lot of the competitors of googled and antitrust experts are very concerned about exactly how this is written because it could affect the way that we access books in the future and a market that could be worth a very lucrative market on online reading. >> host: what is the importance, cecilia kang, of 1923? >> guest: i don't know the importance -- i think that might be -- i don't want to speculate but that is buck off for what is determined as copyright their use that year. anything before that is not protected by copyright >> host: before that mark twain was riding. where does he fall into this

global book settlement? >> guest: if you go to your local bookstore you probably see maybe penguin or i don't know exactly maybe simon and schuster, so that is actually and in print book these are for books only being printed any more. and so it could be for that book by an author in the 1940's that will never really known or address and then i'm trying to think like john steinbeck for example that post 1923. maybe he wrote something that wasn't a huge hit like his other big titles. that book is out of print now but who is to protect that book and who can have rights over that is what is that issue in this case. >> host: cecilia kang is the technical reporter and writes a blog on technical issues, and

telecommunications issues for the washington post. we are talking about a de google book settlement, and there was just some action taken in new york on this recently. what is the status of where we stand? >> guest: well, it looks like it was late last friday when google and the parties involved in the class-action lawsuit from 2005 that the first tried to result a year ago. they submitted a revised version of the settlement under the 2008 settlement 28 new york, a judge in new york for the u.s. district court of the southern district of new york who is determining whether to approve the settlement or not. >> host: and that is denney chin? >> guest: that's right. so he received the comment for the revised settlement and it would seem this revised settlement might be the end of all of this, but no, not by a long shot.

there's going to be significant regulatory hurdles that google and the authors gold still have to clear and that is the justice department will still have to revise the settlement and as well as the public. the public gets the chance to weigh in and tell judge chin we like this or we don't and you can expect criticism because we are already hearing it from competitors and from organizations like the internet archives. they are all saying that there are a key issues that are still not addressed and those key issues still have to do with control. i think that is the best way to describe it. the control over particularly these orphan works i referred to before, and again often works are books that are out there that doesn't have really an owner that we know of or that has been found. and these books are google would still have first rights to and

anybody -- if google decided for example to start scanning a book or the work and then a party spoke up and said hey, actually we are the descendants of so and so and we have the rights to this book. that party according to the revised settlement could not sue google for its rights. so there is a walls that would protect google from the liability over copyright infringement of the orphaned works. and the critics of the settlement say that that's still not fair. that gives google too much leeway and scope to do what they want with this and it gives too much of a commercial edge over competitors because those rights don't exist with competitors. competitors can't like amazon is the most obvious one. they are not legally protected from being sued by rights holders. so that is a big issue and an issue the justice department brought up two months ago when

they released comments on settlement. >> host: okay. who is on what side? >> guest: short, great question. there's lots of slides, peter. that's why this has become such an interesting and confusing issue in many ways. there is google on their own in some ways has this condition again to create the world's biggest library. what's happened now is the authors field and the association of american publishers big groups have now moved into their corner -- >> host: into the google corner. >> guest: the google corner because the half of it in place they want to be approved by judge denney chin so they can move forward. they can actually make money off this and create this big library that everybody agrees could benefit the public and could benefit people commercially, these companies commercially. so now they've moved into this camp. then there are authors groups that don't belong in that camp.

there are internet public interest groups, there are competitors including yahoo!, microsoft, amazon, and there are antitrust attorneys part of this organization called the open book of lions, and they formed one of the co-founders is gary robot who i ron ackley was one of the big anti-trust busters and now he's on microsoft in this case. they are on another side very much on the other side saying there is so much wrong with this and not to mention the exclusive legal protection that google house, but also there is a big concern they have that the default is that with the settlement is that every book can be included. every out of print copyrighted book would be included in the settlement. so if you don't want -- if you are an author of one of these books and don't want to be part of this you have to proactively go into and inform the company's

that you want to opt out and that is something a lot of public interest groups say is always a difficult walls because it takes a certain amount of onus on a person to do that. but if people don't even know? it can be a confusing process. so they opt out is an issue of concern. and it was also an issue of the justice department. they found that could be anticompetitive and not good for the public interest. so they are the open book alliance along with each includes companies and competitors of google's as well as public interest groups are seeing there is a lot of concern with this deal as it is right now. and then somewhere in the middle are the regulators that are trying to make sense of this and trying to make sense of how to create rules or at least guide the parties in the discussion in a way that will set fair rules of the road for the future of

digital commerce of books and content and also will protect consumers but without being overly burdensome. so, they have a very difficult job in the metal as well and a very delicate balancing act. >> host: department of justice coming u.s. copyright office, both very active on this case. from what you have seen so far, what are their biggest concerns? ..

between google and justice. and what they do like is that they've appointed an independent body, a fiduciary is what they're calling it, to oversee the licensing with the collection of licensing fees for these orphaned ducks. they like that. that's a good thing. and these will be distributed to those orphan works can still be accessed industry-leading third parties. google still though, will probably get, it remains unclear i should say, is whether google still got an unfair share of those licensing fees for the distribution of those works, even if third parties are

involved. filaments of this in real-world terms. if you're trying to look or one of these orphaned works and you go through google book search and you look for xyz book, you skin it, you see the skin of 20% of the vote and decide okay what to buy. your options on the side of this is something that businesses now. some buttons you might want to tap that says buy it on amazon, right on google, buy it on whatever it might be. it's unclear right now how the monetary distribution will fall in that important second part of the equation that describes. exactly. the actual purchase. these are the complicated questions that come up to play at the justice department, but looking through competition land. and what they want to make sure is that google doesn't by the way that the settlement is written, the 377 pages, the way that it's rich and gives google a clear, dominate foothold in this barkett batted again

unique. it's going to be huge. >> host: is there a difference, cecilia kang and how the bush justice department is tribune is as opposed to the obama likes >> guest: it was the obama ticket up in the first place. >> host: the bush? >> guest: the obama ticket up in the first place. though i'm sure during the bush administration never watching it and are often times i have on the staff level where they're looking at different issues. but as far as us knowing before law review that happened during the administration. i would say general the way that, this is not a direct answer to your question, but the way that the obama administration is approaching antitrust appears to be different. they appear to be very interested in issues that revolve around technology, the technology industry, both at the justice department and the federal trade commission. and that's a tricky thing.

i read a story in the paper on sunday how some interest in the high-tech sector has engaged washington and the valley more than it ever has been. but again at the delicate balance. google will tell you and other companies, too, that you don't want to be overburdened some with the rules and regulations that would hamper innovation, that could potentially set rules that could be outdated so terribly quickly because the web moves so quickly and changes so quickly. so there's a delicate balance is trying to balance right now, that's trying to be struck right now. and that actually is across several agencies. as of the federal trade commission, the justice department, the federal communications commission, which right now is grappling with the very conjurer show rules on how internet service providers can treat content, the web content over their networks. so i would say the obama administration, in general, is definitely willing to take a

stab at it and figure out how, you know, they are seeing cracks in the fisheries is what you hear some time for them regularities, cracks in the foundation i should say. where they are our concerns of competition being hampered. concerns that new players that new company in that garage in central valley or elsewhere may not actually make it to see daylight because they become the players like the big telecom players, the big tech companies. and google is a big company now, could be setting some really big press event in some really big deals that could completely change competition down the road. and it's difficult regulatory mission to try to predict the future. and in some ways that's what the obama administration has to do when it deals with internet

policy. >> host: is this a case where regulation is not given up attack knowledge or techno she is changed and regulation is behind ten, 20 years? >> guest: i think so, only in that nobody really knew that google was doing this. it was unlike -- it was actually secret for a while. it was the good from about 2002 for a couple years. they even say so. but they were doing it quietly and nobody was really following and then at that time, you know, everyone was using amazon. a lot of consumers were using amazon to buy books on the web, but during that time, the kendall came out. all these game changing gadgets and applications and is just now that we're all grasping that they offered in this ecosystem and this universe of convergence on the web where media, content, information and the way that we access that information, how we distribute it, it's posting all

these vexing questions because it all resides on the web. this is an example because i would say they started this in 2002 until 2008 for the justice department to really start a review of it and figure out if this is anticompetitive. and the copyright office didn't really pay pin until this last year. this was an issue of some pretty clear copyright concerns. >> host: without the congress? >> guest: so congress had a hearing on this earlier this year and that's were a member of the copyright office spoke and voiced their concerns. a lot of people think that that's where this settlement should be fall. and what i mean by that is congress -- there's a lot of effort for congress to establish clear legislation on online, online book commerce and online book copyrights. there is that -- there's definitely a push for that. you are not hearing that right

now so much, because this case is moving into the u.s. district court in new york. it looks like this may be resolved between two private parties and that, actually that the cracks of the concern by critics. this case could be precedent setting and is between private parties. this should not be a case, this is what critics say, between private parties that would set the rules of the road for how do you access a book online, how you read a book online. how much you may pay for it, these are big questions that arise that are being resolved in this one case and that, i'd become a good way to think about the criticism. >> host: are we in the comments. can people make comments? >> guest: not yet. danny chan, that he was -- what will happen next as you open up

for public comment and then justice has a chance to sound in. to chime in on their own reaction to the rise settlement. >> guest: and anyone else. >> guest: and anyone else for sure. and then judge danny chan is expected in early 2010 that he will actually conductive hearing come his fairness hearing on this that will ultimately determine to accept or reject the settlement. and if people want to comment, do you know where they can go? esko i believe it will be at the u.s. district court of new york, judge denny chen. i will have it on my website. >> host: what is your website? >> guest: it's called post-attack it up on the "washington post" website. what easier is to go to voices."washington post".com/post-attack. and i'm also on twitter.

it is cecilia kang. >> host: cecilia kang of the "washington post." >> guest: thank you so much.

>> patcher go donner is a military historian the author of five previous books. his advocates they dare to return. my first question, who is frederick? >> he is right here and is probably the greatest americans buy from world war ii. and he was part of operation green map, a german refugee that

dared return. it went behind the lines and not to germany and was disguised as a german officer and change the course of world war ii, got tens of thousands of german soldiers to surrender, from the plans for hitler's bunker as well as destroy 26 strains of an airstrike. patrick, can you tell me what time. this took place? >> this took place in 1945 and it's one of the great untold stories of world war ii. fred maher was put in for the world of honor and that's still a medal that has not been -- nothing suburban -- nothing is ever happened to it. it is one of those untold questions that we're trying to find out as far as his recommendation. >> how did you get involved with this? how did you find out about it? >> about six years ago, i was researching a book called operative spies and a history of the oss. i've interviewed about 300 oss and fred maher was one of my first veterans that i ever

interviewed. and from there i became close friends with this man and i just got involved in his story, which is really one of the great untold stories of world war ii. >> mr. mayor, you read the operation. could you tell if a little bit about that? >> we did what we had to do from then on. >> what did that entail? >> first, my original job was to find out how the germans got back to italy through the birnam pass. and it turns out our photographs showed that the bridges were all destroyed. at the germans had been imported and taken into the tunnels so i pulled them out only when the train was to be going through. so our area photographs