Google Print and Copyright

bq.Google Inc.’s plan to digitize the collections of some of the world’s biggest libraries is facing stiff criticism from a group of academic publishers who complain that the project may violate copyright laws and hurt book sales. – “Verne Kopytoff(Google’s library project challenged Publishers cite loss of revenue, possible copyright violations)”: According to my understanding, only works out of copyright would be fully available through Google. The others would merely be preserved in digital form. Apparently, even that is unacceptable.
bq.Google’s response to publishers’ objections to Google Print for Libraries that they may “opt out” of the program seems both legally irrelevant and factually disingenuous. Among other reasons, it is irrelevant because all a publisher can do under this option is assert its control over the right of display by Google after the infringing copies have been made. It ignores the fundamental exclusive right of distribution, since a copy or copies will have already been given to the participating libraries. – “Peter Givler(Letter to Google)”: So, even though the University owns the copy of the book, it has no right to scan a copy of it, according to Mr. Givler. An interesting argument because not even the MPAA or RIAA have gone that far that I can think of. But then, these works are still a tremendous source of income for the publishers.
bq.Of the 187,280 books published in the U.S. from 1927-1946, only 4,267 are currently available from publishers at any price. In other words, of the entire universe of books published in the United States that are potentially affected by the retroactive 1976 extension, only 2.3 percent remain commercially available, while 183,013, or roughly ninety-seven percent of those works, remain commercially dormant and inaccessible. – “Jason Schultz(Revised: Myth of the 1976 Copyright Catastrophe)”: This all reminded me of something. Back when I was in high school, I had a friend whose mother’s hobby was collecting out of print science fiction novels. When she couldn’t locate a copy, she would borrow one and then retype the entire thing. It usually took her two or three days. From my understanding of copyright law, what she did was far worse than what Google is proposing. Although, the fact that what either she or Google have done is considered wrong shows that there are some seriously flaws in Copyright Law.