I have a great deal of admiration for Jason's twitter novel, and I'm gaining a lot of respect for the twitter medium. It's fantastic to have a short form outlet that obliges creative types to present concise ideas. Clearly that conciseness need not limit or present a threat to the long form. Congratulations, Jason! Thanks Maxine for giving the Overland audience an introduction.

It is quite right to argue against the apparent position "that sharing should maybe now be compulsory because it is so possible", though that position should not be attributed to Lynne Spender. The copyright laws are designed for those people who wish to protect their creative work from plagiarism, not to encourage open access. There is an open access movement doing that, and I have to admit that I lean toward that particular ethic. That is my choice and I choose it from a position in which I don't expect to earn any proceeeds from my writing. One day I am going to write something worth protecting (for financial or personal reasons) and I sure as hell will be disappointed if the copyright laws have been subsumed into a free for all open access Google matrix. Lynne Spender and Morris Gleitzman both agree that "the principle of copyright and of creators having some sort of protection of their work is just as valid as it ever was". Since it is Lynne Spender's argument that copyright laws shoud be re-thought to incorporate the challenges of the digital age, it is Lynne Spender's argument that must demonstrate precisely how that will be achieved whilst retaining the legal protections that have been afforded to the old 'print' school. Until then, it is not unreasonable for the likes of Google to face legal challenges, since it is those legal challenges that represent the search for a model on the Gleitzman side of the debate.