I did answer your question. If you read my posts instead of skimming them (as you have specifically said you did), you would see this.
You can opt out of google. WITHOUT contacting them first. You can insert the code into your web page at the time of creation. I think it's fair to say that anyone making a web page as a better than reasonable chance to know about google. If they don't like it, they can search up how to opt out. I don't know why they would, but they can. I would assume you can do the same with archive.org, but since it doesn't bother me, I've not researched it.
Again, "opting out" of a project you have a less than reasonable chance of knowing about (and while the list of web-savvy authors is growing, I would still put a brand new project by Google on the list of things most print authors don't immediately learn about). The authors should be contacted prior to the copy of their copy being made. Anyone who chooses not to, doesn't respond, or asks for more compensation than Google is willing to give should be left out. That is there right.
There are two other cases of making copies that have been brought up (I don't regard people checking out a book making new copies -- even remotely, the law I believe is fair doesn't prohibit number of readings, just copies; an individual can re-read his copy of a book as many times as he likes, even loan it, as long as he's not making a copy and selling it). One is photocopying an entire book. This rarely happens, because it's so time consuming and generally speaking the cost of photocopying becomes higher than buying another copy. However, in cases where a book is copied, it's still illegal. The other copies mentioned are the "cache" in web browsers. If this were a common problem it would be dealt with, as it has been. you used to be able to pull a copy of the flash files of any flash you viewed and save it -- something a lot of people did with flash games. However, they put measures in place to prevent this ease of copying. It's not perfect, and not everyone uses it, but it's there. If the problem were more widespread, I would expect, and support, legal action against Mozilla and Microsoft (and probably Opera, and Apple) if they didn't agree to at least protect the cache better, if not remove it altogether.
Maybe this online thing will not turn out to be a problem, but this sort of thing cannot be demonstrated at this point, and writers have a right to have their material protected, without having to, by pure chance, find out about it and then contact the company.
I asked you to define how you want to change it. As Jefferson said, it is often more dangerous to act than to wait. I certainly cannot (ethically) remotely support an initiative that is not defined.
NOw, you've started to define it, but you've put forth several ideas and not codified them. Which are you advocating?