Google has proposed a deal with representatives of authors and publishers to host a massive digital library. This library will consist primarily of books published in the United States. Google will make old and new books available digitally. This catalog will include books that are no longer in print and “orphan” texts (books for which the copyright owner is unknown or whose contact information is unavailable).5 The texts will be available through search engines, for sale individual as e-books and with database subscriptions. If Google's settlement is approved by the Department of Justice, ethical issues would be called into question. Questions addressed in this paper include whether the agreement creates a “legally sanctioned cartel for digital book rights”4 and whether the public benefits outweigh the consequences of the monopoly. Google has the network, storage, manpower and funding to make this digital library a possibility, but is this justification enough to give one company such concentrated power over access to information? Using the utilitarian approach, arguments both for and against the Google Libraries Agreement can be supported. First you should establish the audience. Authors and publishers could be hit financially by this deal. They are represented as a whole by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. Both groups are working together to ensure that writers aren't undercompensated by Google and that publishing prices don't get too high. The Google company and its competitors are directly affected by the outcome of the agreement. Google will take on a huge expense in hopes of making a reasonable profit. Competitors with equivalent capabilities, such as Microsoft and Amazon, have remained silent… mid-paper… there is no immediate need to accept the current deal. The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers should take time to incorporate preventative measures into the agreement. Given the substantial impact the digital library would have, time should be spent re-discussing the terms of use, including changes and restrictions. References1. E. HARRIS and R. JAMES, ENGR 482 Class Notes, Texas A&M University (Fall 2009).2. HARRIS,PRITCHARD, RABINS, “Engineering Ethics”, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, Belmont (2009)3. JE VASCELLARO and JA TRACHTENBERG, “Digital Rights Signatories Revisit Google Deal,” Wall Street Journal; wsj.com (October 29, 2009)4. S. SHANKLAND, “The future of Google's digital books hangs in the balance,” News.cnet.com (October 2009)5. P. SCHRANK, “Google's Big Book Case”, print edition of the Economist (3 September 2009)