I hate Google stealing book rights from authors and I do not want to help them doing so.
You are incorrect. Copyright is granted to authors for a fixed period of time to encourage them to release their works knowing they will have a government sanctioned period of time during which they may gain profit from their work WHILE explicitly telling them that their work is meant to be a benefit to society in general.
If they do not wish to participate in copyright, they are able to do so simply by not publishing thier work.
Those who wish to both publish their work and know it will never be used without profit to them or their heirs should move to a country where they may realize their desire.
I do not want to make this google vs anti-google discussion
This is not about Google at all. This is about people deciding whether they believe that ideas, works, patents should have a limited period of exclusivity so that society can move forward together. Further, prior to the concept of copyright authors got nothing for their efforts, except what the Lords of their time paid them. Once people could easily and cheaply make copies of books, the authors appealed to the government to give them a period of time where they could make a living off each work. This encourages them to take on these endeavors, because otherwise there would have been no profit for them in the first place.
It is quite bold of you to suggest that authors should now be given government protection WITHOUT providing ANYTHING to the government (ie, society as a whole). Perhaps the system you'd like to see is copyright protection granted in perpetuity as long as they license their book with the government - pay a fee and get approval to publish the book. That seems to work out really well in countries big on censorship.
If you allow authors (or their companies) to forever hold their works, then you must allow patents the same benefit. In the same way that we enjoy indoor plumbing and medical remedies such as ibuprofen for pennies, the cultural growth we've achieved can only be obtained when schools can afford to reprint Dickens, Bach, etc.
That move is only one step away from banning libraries from lending out books - shouldn't the authors be paid everytime anyone reads any of their published words? The next step, of course, is banning second hand sales of books without paying a royalty.
It is shortsighted to believe that we, as a human race, can move forward and progress without sharing.
It truly boggles my mind how many people have such a basic misunderstanding as to the purpose of copyright law.