As with many legal systems, the copyright framework in most countries is slow to evolve. Every now and then, however, there is a game-changing event. The recent agreement in the US between Google, the search giant, and American publishers may be just that.

In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers launched proceedings against Google for allegedly infringing their members’ copyright.

The action related to Google’s book search service, whereby thousands of books, many out of print and thus not widely available by other means, have been digitised and made accessible to searching over the internet. Last month, the parties agreed to settle out of court.

The agreement is one of a mounting number of recent examples where business and rights holders have taken the initiative and struck deals that have the potential to streamline the administration of copyright in the digital age.

Under the settlement, if approved by the courts, Google will set up a new Book Rights Registry. This will allow holders of American copyrights to choose to register their works and receive compensation for the various uses that Google wishes to put them to.

While right holders who do not register will still be entitled to compensation for any use of their works, the mass registry should simplify the processes of rights clearance and payment and make the service viable on a scale not seen before.

Many US libraries are intending to make out of print material available to Google on this basis. The impact on access to such works in the US is likely to be significant, enabling consumers to access works they previously would have struggled to find.

The effect of this agreement will in the most part be limited to the US. And yet the announcement is of interest to users of the copyright system worldwide. Why? Because this is an agreement that, if it works as it should, will strike a middle ground between the need for public access to works and the right of authors and publishers to control and be paid for the use of their creations.

The result, if it works, will be an evolution in the way copyright licensing for printed works is administered and a revolution in the freedom of access to harder-to-find works — all within a system that will remunerate rights holders fairly and give them control over the use of their works.

Nobody can argue with the fact that books are meant to be read. This is what the consumers want and also what authors want.

Even in this digital age, there are many thousands of works, out of print and often out of copyright, that are locked away in library collections; unsearchable and inaccessible. The fact that this pressing need has not been addressed through changes to the legal framework is evidence of the difficulties of legislating in this area.

However, the Google agreement demonstrates that the system does allow flexibility for people to negotiate agreements in ways that suit them best.

It comes hot on the heels of other similar agreements. For example, the recent agreement between Viacom and MySpace which allows the users of the popular social networking site to reuse content from MTV videos online, without going through the process of gaining permission each time.

This type of agreement moves us a step closer to making copyright work seamlessly alongside the types of activities that people want to undertake, both professionally and in their leisure time.

There are, of course, notes of caution. It is important that rights holders are free to enter into collective agreements or to pass them by, without unduly suffering as a result of exercising that choice. There are also those international and domestic legal obligations that in many cases act as essential safeguards for rights holders and consumers.

Yet it cannot be overlooked that such agreements are a practical and innovative attempt to move things forward and make copyright work. As long as the right balance is stuck between the needs of rights holders and those of consumers, I believe that developments like this are something we should not dismiss. After all, nobody writes a book in the hope that it will lie ignored on a shelf.

David Lammy is the Minister of State for Higher Education and Intellectual Property

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• City law firms prepare for painful year ahead
• Welcome to 2009: the year of the regulator
• Thacher Proffitt is latest US legal casualty