Google Library --> Fantastic.

I am fully on board with Google’s online library initiatives.

At the risk of insulting the readers here but for the purpose of emphasizing its importance – copyright law gives authors legal rights to exclude others. This parallel's other property rights such as the right to exclude third parties from trespassing on your property. For example, if a third person decides to walk across a farm-owners property, the farm-owner can choose whether or not to hold the third person liable for trespass. Copyright law says the rightholder may exclude others – it does NOT say that others may not copy, distribute, etc. Unfortunately, it appears that some potentially influential people fail to remember this fundamental aspect of copyright law. The following quotes are illustrative:

"Google's procedure shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear," said Mrs. Schroeder – President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers (AAP).

"In my view, Google has chosen the wrong path for the longer term, because it systematically violates copyright," said Mr. Rubin, Microsoft's associate general counsel for copyright, trademark and trade secrets.

Apparently, Mrs. Schroeder believes that it’s the burden of everybody except for the copyright holder to refrain from acting; however, it is the right – and thus the burden – of the rightsholder to decide whether or not to enforce their right to exclude others. Mr. Rubin’s comments suggest similar misguided beliefs.

Accordingly, in my opinion, Google is fully within their legal rights to do actions (such as creating an online library) which others may ALLEGE to be infringing. Notably, actions are not considered infringing until a court finds the actions infringing and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. To the extent that rightsholders consider Google’s actions infringing, they may file their complaint with a court of law.

Notably, Google’s actions are also likely more economically efficient than other proposals – other proposals being Google finding content owners and entering into license agreements with each and every content owner before electronically reproducing their work. Indeed, as articulated by Peter Hirtle, IP officer for Cornell University Library, "[i]t's too expensive to try to secure the permission of copyright owners, who in many cases can't be identified or located."

B.