Ursula Le Guin's Petition Against Google Books 473
Miracle Jones blogs about the petition against the Google Book Settlement created by science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin, winner of five Hugo awards and six Nebulas. Le Guin is urging professional writers who are opposed to the terms of the settlement to sign her online petition before the January 28th deadline. From the petition: "The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media. All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it. We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control."
Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:3, Insightful)
"But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it. We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control."
So, which corporation is more evil when it comes to copyright: Disney or Google? Seems to me that Le Guin is in effect supporting the Disney model.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Informative)
No, she's saying that while copyright on the document is in effect that no corporation shall infringe upon that copyright.
Disney wants "copyright == infinity".
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a reason they call it the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
"In addition to Disney (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"), California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor) and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said:
Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day.
Then we all realise that mathematical illiteracy has just gone a step lower... Thanks edumacation system!
I finished my shift an hour ago. (Score:3, Insightful)
I look forward to my employer making a deposit in my account for the next 60 years.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Informative)
New? 162 years? [wikipedia.org] The registration bullshit is of course U.S. only, not elsewhere [wikipedia.org] (1886), and is obviously grossly unfair to those who don't speak the language of bureaucracy.
Neither I nor LeGuin have advocated perpetual extensions, only the author's rights, so I don't see why you bring it up. I don't support perpetual copyrights, nor renewal of copyrights.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither I nor LeGuin have advocated perpetual extensions, only the author's rights, so I don't see why you bring it up.
Have you asked the copyright owners of 'South Park' for permission to call yourself 'MrHanky'?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever covered yourself in fecal matter and associated with children? If not, I think you're legally in the clear... In more ways than one.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the objection that Ursula LeGuin (and others) have to the Google Books deal is nothing to do with the term of copyright or direct control. It's the fact that as part of this settlement Google has decided that 'unless you actually explicitly object, in writing, to our use of your work, you give us implied right to publish.' LeGuin and others are objecting to the idea that /during the term of copyright/ authors should have to 'opt out' of having their works made freely available online, rather than giving them the choice of 'opting in.' This isn't about length of copyright or anything else. But having this method be opt-out rather than opt-in puts authors in a bad spot, especially if they've sold electronic reproduction rights to an eBook publisher and then Google comes along and puts the book up for free because the author didn't opt-out quickly enough.
Many of the authors I know of who object to this are ones who /also/ give away free (or incredibly cheap) eBooks of their work when the work is no longer held by a particular publisher. LeGuin herself has DRM-free eBooks of her own older work available for about $1 each through several eBook sellers, and is actually quite against extensions of copyright. As the forward to the brief explanation of copyright law she has on her website, she refers to:
...the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system.
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Copyright.html [ursulakleguin.com]
The problem LeGuin and those signing her petition have is the blanket expectation that anything -- even books which may be under a current publishing contract with some publisher who has bought electronic rights -- is fair game unless the copyright holder explicitly opts that individual title out. I mean, let's be fair, we've all seen that opt-out methods are generally not popular with those they target. How many of us actually liked the logic of opt-out spam, where if you haven't contacted the people to say /not/ to send them spam, then they assume you've given implicit permission to send you spam e-mail?
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Google settlement sound remarkably reasonably actually.
If you don't like what Google is doing to "your property", then you send them a "Cease and Desist" letter.
What a poor dear you must be to actually have to let people know that your work isn't an orphan anymore.
That really should be the default state of things. We should not have this
stupid, crippling fear that anything that we might create could infringe on
someone else's work and they might be able to come back and shake us down for
more than their stuff is worth.
This isn't just a theoretical problem.
Who is actually supposed to be getting hurt here?
Who is the victim exactly? ...and no I don't think full text search of a book is something that
an author has any right to suppress. Trying to stop such a thing is
intrusive and self-defeating.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Google settlement sound remarkably reasonably actually.
If you don't like what Google is doing to "your property", then you send them a "Cease and Desist" letter.
It's not reasonable because it places an enormous burden on the rights holder to police the use of his creation, and every time something slips by him, you're effectively saying that it was legal.
It's like saying that, if a cop didn't catch the thief, there was no crime committed.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, you missed one small aspect: I represent JRandomCorporations(0 through 10000). And I have decided that I am going to publish all abandoned works online. But feel free to e-mail or post me a letter if I accidentally publish your non-abandoned work.
The letter you send to 're-up' your copyright should go to the copyright office. Every 10 years sounds fine with me. If you don't re-up, THEN the work is considered abandoned, and becomes public domain.
And funny thing. This used to be the case here in the US. Alas. Lawyers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is how copyright works. If someone rips off your work and publishes it in India, you may not know about it unless someone tells you. You can then send your C&D and the publisher may withdraw it as India is relatively compliant. China may be another issue. It mqay sound unfair but that is how copyright has always been - a civil offence.
No, it's not how copyright work. The difference is that, once you find out that your work has been distributed without you knowing, you can sue the person that had done so, as they have committed a civil offense.
In this case, everything Google does until you catch them is legal. You can't sue them and make them pay out any damages they might have caused by distributing your copyrighted works. Thus, they actually have an incentive to take your work, mark it as "orphaned", and distribute it as much as possibl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because theft is a CRIME.
Infringement is a TORT.
-Rick
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem. The opt-out approach is entirely necessary to Google's goals in this project, specifically with regards to so-called "orphaned works".
There are many books out there who's copyright status is questionable. For whatever reason, the right's holders cannot be contacted. These works are essentially lost to us. Many were produced in very limited runs in the first place, and there are few copies still floating around. If your library happens to have one, then you can read one of these works -- but otherwise you're out of luck.
While ideally, copyright law could be reformed to put these works into the Public Domain so that they can be reproduced and made available to anyone -- this is not something Google can realistically do.
The opt-out implementation of the settlement gives them a way to put these works back into the public space -- though not quite into the public domain. It gives people a way to access works that are otherwise lost to them. It rescues them from obscurity and dusty bookshelves so that they can once again be read and enjoyed.
And that, in a nut-shell, is why the settlement has to be opt-out instead of opt-in. Call it cheating if you want, but certainly it does far more to benefit everyone than it does to harm authors by forcing the hardship of opting out upon them. Yes, it does feel backwards to have someone say to you "I'm going to do xyz with your stuff unless you say 'no'" -- but at the end of the day, if it only takes you 5 seconds to say "no" and it only happens one time -- it's not that big of a deal.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Informative)
As per the Bern Convention, French copyright law doesn't apply in America, the French are simply afforded the same copy protections as a US citizen would have when there is a case of infringement of a Frenchman's work in America, and vice versa and for all signatories of the Bern convention. There are minimums set in the Bern convention, but they were in line with what US copyright law already stated at the time, and they were nowhere near the roughly 140 year terms we have now.
US Copyright law was never significantly altered because of the Bern Convention except to extend the copyright protections to non-citizens (specifically, citizens of signatory countries).
The reason we have the outrageous copyright extensions is because large corporations (Disney being the most adamant) lobbied like hell for them. They were never instated based on another country's laws except as an argument for them. It was more like Disney saying "Look, the French do it, why can't we?" and dumbasses in congress actually listening to them.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:4, Informative)
Copyright is about protecting publishers' rights, not the creators'
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, she's saying the authors should have control over their work, or whoever they sell those rights to.
I don't have any problem with that. I think the Google deal is a bad one for everyone because A) why should Google have special privileges? Why can't anyone else get the same terms? And B) it doesn't focus on the real problem: indefinite extension of copyright terms and the illegality of DRM circumvention even if the activity would otherwise be legal.
Copyright law is broken. It needs to be fixed, not fiddled with to Google's advantage only.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had some mod points. What you say makes a lot of sense.
Absolutely! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google does not need the settlement if copyright were restored to the original 14 year timeframe! All books older than 14 years should be indexed by google by virtue of being in the public domain. Authors and publishers should play the search engine game like everyone else during that 14 years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google does not need the settlement if copyright were restored to the original 14 year timeframe! All books older than 14 years should be indexed by google by virtue of being in the public domain. Authors and publishers should play the search engine game like everyone else during that 14 years.
Random sidenote, can you imagine how much more culture we could consume if everything were limited to 14 years?
I wonder how many authors would continue writing?
This is very frustrating to me.
Re:Absolutely! (Score:4, Interesting)
How many writers still sell their books more than 14 years after they're first published?
Re:Absolutely! (Score:4, Interesting)
more like, how many publishers keep the authors book in print for the full 14 years...
i am hard pressed finding a book that was printed 5 years ago, unless i head for the library. And there is no indication that the publisher plans to do more print runs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright always had a framework for extensions to 28 years.
You might alternatively create a universal opt-out deal beyond 14 years : Copyright like normal for the first 14 years. After 14 years, the author may still order any entity to cease distribution, but the author is no longer entitled to damages from distribution prior to filing the order. So authors could still make any serious publisher pay up, including google, but overall most works still effectively enter the public domain.
All of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law is broken. It needs to be fixed, not fiddled with to Google's advantage only.
And, given last week's Supreme Court decision removing all restrictions on corporations' spending to influence political decisions, how long do you propose we hold our collective breath?
Let's face it, folks. Absent a revolution, we've lost this war. At the behest of five assholes in black party dresses, America has now officially become a plutocracy. Money talks and public interest walks.
Not that that's any great change from business as usual, you understand. It's just official now.
I'd weep for my poor, broken-ass country, if I wasn't so busy trying not to become homeless ...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google doesn't have special privileges. Any company is free to negotiate the same terms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, any company with enough (monetary) clout. Choose the fortune 500 that you prefer for this ?
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, which corporation is more evil when it comes to copyright: Disney or Google? Seems to me that Le Guin is in effect supporting the Disney model.
No.
She's saying that, during the term of a copyright, a corporation should have to actually get permission from the copyright holder to use a writer's work.
The google-model is opt-out-- "unless you specifically contact us and tell us not to, we now have your implied permission to use your work."
I'm not real happy with opt-out models, myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And that's the magic right there.
No claim of extending copyright. Just fair treatment of copyright holders without special exemption for corporations... Google operates for a profit. Your local library does not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google operates for a profit. Your local library does not.
Probably not, but there's no reason they can't. Blockbuster operates for a profit after all. Libraries, be they book or video, work because of the inherent physicality of the work. I own 5 copies of a book, I can rent out 5 copies. Even if I charge, there's nothing an author can say about that.
It's the "e"-book that's throwing a kink in things, not either the library aspect or the profitability of it. If Google purchases e-book licenses, I fail to se
It'a an attempt to do "public domain". (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is attempting to re-create "public domain" in an industry where Disney is trying to kill it.
In this instance I'm in favour of Google as being the "lesser" evil.
Because Disney is still raking in the revenues on old works, they will continue to pay Congress to extend the copyright period. Public Domain will die. At least this way SOME works will still be available.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesteing... Google as an equal and opposite reaction to Disney (and the MPAA/RIAA). We should actually try to get around to *fixing* copyright, particularly if Google doesn't get its settlement, it would probably use its financial resources lobbying muscle to fix this in a more general way in the legislative arena.
Re:It'a an attempt to do "public domain". (Score:4, Informative)
Actually Google don't have sole rights - you can have the same rights if you want.
AFAIK Googles deal is non-exclusive so you can get the exactly same deal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not real happy with opt-out models, myself.
Well, in the case of orphaned works, this is the best option, but Google should not be granted any special privileges or exclusivity over those works.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:4, Informative)
No. Google's model only applies to orphaned books, ones that don't have an identifiable owner. Both you and Le Guin want us to believe that Google can use any book they want whenever they want without permission.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Use? I thought copyright was about COPYing.
It covers more than that [copyright.gov], including public performance (say, playing the radio at work), and modifying existing copies [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No it doesn't.
Unless you create and distribute copies, the Media Moguls are no real position to mess with you.
"modifying an existing copy" is creating and distributing a derivative work just like if you would have tried violate the GPL.
Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean? (Score:5, Informative)
Le Guin does not in fact support the 'Disney model', e.g. here:
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Copyright.html [ursulakleguin.com]
she describes the Sonny Bono act as "the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system". She just doesn't want to be screwed over by Google in a land grab deal negotiated by an 'Authors Guild' that doesn't represent her.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
She just doesn't want to be screwed over by Google in a land grab deal negotiated by an 'Authors Guild' that doesn't represent her.
What good is a petition, then? An agreement between Google and this 'Author's Guild' doesn't change the black-letter copyright law of this country. If she's not represented by the Guild, then when Google reproduces her work withour her permission, then she can sue them for copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
she describes the Sonny Bono act as "the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system".
Seriously? Is this just reflexive Berkeley anti-americanism or some specific anti-americanism of her own part?
The Sonny Bono act was to bring the US into agreement with -already-existing- EU law, and is based entirely upon the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works which the "international copyright system" is based upon.
I ex
Author's deserve to be paid! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for electronic distribution, as long as the author is still paid for their work; but perhaps they become public domain upon their death; none of this estate stuff...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ok with estate (surviving spouse), it's America's de-facto perpetual copyright combined with abuse of international copyright treaties (keep renewing in a different country to circumvent laws) that pisses me off.
Re:Author's deserve to be paid! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?
Book publishers would end up with their own mercenary task forces to get access to popular works.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize how quickly JK Rowling and other authors would be murdered if that were the case?
Book publishers would end up with their own mercenary task forces to get access to popular works.
Heinlein would have loved that idea...
A big compound with the lights which tell float craft not to try it, and a lime pit behind the hot tub.
Re:Author's deserve to be paid! (Score:4, Insightful)
If it were so she'd have been murdered already, given that the copyright expiration clock doesn't start ticking as long as she breathes.
Though given that corporations can't generally think 5 minutes ahead of them, let alone 50 years, it may just be that I'm giving corps far more credit than they deserve.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"none of this estate stuff..."
This always drives me nuts as a writer. Okay it can take a decade or more to get your work out there. Say I write a dozen books and finally get one published then a day later die in a car accident leaving my family with nothing but the work I spent ten years writing. Are you saying they don't have the right to benefit from my work? Some writers only become popular after their death even though they may leave a large body of work. Why should the public benefit but not my family?
Re:Author's deserve to be paid! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are writers and creators of media singled out for loosing everything upon their deaths?
You're not. Anything you physically own before you die will be passed on to your family (local laws permitting), just like any other person on the planet... house, money, car, copies of your books, porn mags, etc.
The real question should be: why are writers and creators singled out for _EXTRA_ rights which aren't given to anyone else? If I die, my kids won't be able to go to my boss and demand that he continues to pay them my salary, why should writers be any different?
Re:Author's deserve to be paid! (Score:4, Interesting)
Except your example is nothing like the situation a writers family is in. A writers family is in the same situation I am - I inherited a piece of property, and I have every right to insist the tenants on that property continue to pay rent. I inherited a sales contract on an automobile, and I have every right to insist the payments be made on time and in full. Etc. etc..
So no, the writers family isn't any different. They inherit property and contracts the same as you and me.
Limited times (Score:3, Insightful)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
So, what in her mind happens when that time expires?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. It never expires. She seems to have a very very distorted idea of what "free and open dissemination of information and literature" means. Apparently she thinks that information needs to be controlled by its author(s) in order to be open or some such nonsense. It's an extreme sense of entitlement.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You have hit it on the nose. "free and open dissemination" simply does not jibe with it being "controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it." Putting it in the public domain is free and open; using a Free distribution license like Creative Commons also is. And of course, infringement of copyright law is also free and open dissemination. Anything else is not, but PD and so-called piracy are both clear examples of free and open distribution which do not involve author/owner control.
I don't h
Re:Limited times (Score:5, Insightful)
And what's your alternative?
Well, we could start with securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries to promote the progress of science and useful arts. And then after a few years it would go into the public domain and someone could cut all the mind-numbingly boring parts out of 'The Dispossessed' and release a version that's worth reading... no, actually, that's probably impossible. They could at least stick more sex and explosions in there, I guess.
Re:Limited times (Score:4, Funny)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
So, what in her mind happens when that time expires?
Nothing, obviously: Under ACTA, copyrights will expire roughly two weeks after the heat death of the universe.
the parental model (Score:5, Insightful)
It occurs to me that authoring a book should be a lot like raising a child. You should have the right to full control of your progeny for a little while then it's not "yours" any more. To hold on to that relationship too long is unhealthy for everyone involved, including society as a hole.
This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.
Re:the parental model (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
NO she is saying she wants the Disney model where her great great grandchildren get paid for doing nothing because they are related to her. The google model while not much better at least lets the works become useful after her death.
Re:the parental model (Score:4, Insightful)
The "audacity" here is simply a literal reading of the law.
That law includes the relevant uber-law.
Copyright is not a natural right but something that the state is allowed to do as a means to some other end.
What audacity you must have to dictate to me how I use something you've sold to me.
A song is not a wedding dress. The moment you attempt to conflate the two you are engaging in obvious dishonesty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
More of us would be sympathetic with that sentiment if copyright laws/terms were not so out of whack.
The original terms of 14 years, with an extension to double that was spot on. Now days, 28 years can be an eternity with software, among other digital forms of media.
Add to that the always connected trend in recent years, social networking, youtube(and similar), etc., and you begin to see that 95+years can seem excessive.(especially when it seems to Joe Sixpack that most rights to stuff is owned by big corpo
Re:the parental model (Score:4, Insightful)
The google case is only about 2 things 1) out of print "orphaned books." 2) showing small sections of all other books.
She is only complaining about the orphaned books. I would support her if she was proposing some way of saving these books, it appears to me her real motive is she doesn't want google awaking competition to her books. Her only proposals seamed aimed solely at increasing the cost to google, not increasing access to these books.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The google case is only about 2 things 1) out of print "orphaned books." 2) showing small sections of all other books. She is only complaining about the orphaned books.
No, she's complaining that all books are assumed "orphaned" by Google, unless the author notices and tells otherwise.
The only sane way to fix copyright is by significantly reducing the term (so that true orphaned works just fall into public domain quickly). The "Google solution" is nothing but a corporate power-grab.
Re:the parental model (Score:4, Interesting)
True. Thing is, however, that we've been screwed for so long by copyright laws that to many of us, this Google deal is a perfect opportunity to shout "fuck you!" to those scumbags in return, even if it's not the best way to go about it (mostly because only Google gets the benefits, the "opt-out" can stay as far as I'm concerned).
The French would disagree (Score:5, Funny)
This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.
The French would disagree with this. They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century. I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.
So it looks like the French are our new political football in America. Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war, and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights.
Oh France! Some Americans will always hate you, but America as a whole will always love you!
Re: (Score:2)
and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights
I get it too that there are many liberals for copyright and conservatives against. I was just making a joke about the role of France in the USA.
I'm actually increasingly against copyrights and patents because I think they create a social inequality between different kinds of workers. A man that builds a house, can only charge once for that house. A man that writes a computer program, or a song,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This idea that artists control their work forever is unfair to everyone.
The French would disagree with this. They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century. I don't know why the French are this way, but given that they have invented croissants, mayonaisse and champagne, I'm inclined to believe them.
So it looks like the French are our new political football in America. Liberals loved the French when they were anti-war, and now, here we are, conservatives, saying, "hey, look at how great France is", in order to support copyrights.
Oh France! Some Americans will always hate you, but America as a whole will always love you!
Ironically enough the French stole the croissant from the Austrians - perhaps Vienna should lodge a DMCA takedown notice against every patisserie in Paris.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I love how all the people proposing these theories here have never published a book that actually could be sold for real money.
Why is it unfair that artists control their work? That's like saying that people who build or buy a house should eventually have to give it back to society. If you have talent and tremendous dedication, go make another work that may be inspired by the works you admire. Just don't copy passages verbatim or use the same names.
If you don't have both talent and tremendous dedication,
Re:the parental model (Score:5, Insightful)
> Why is it unfair that artists control their work?
Why? Because you have to trample on the rights of others to do so.
A dress is not in many places at once. If you want to control what happens
to a dress, or a car, or a chair then it is a fairly simple matter. Any
attempt to control physical property is by the nature of non-imaginary
property very limited in scope.
In order to "control" what's in the ether you have to be ready, willing and
able to interfere with people in their own homes and businesses in their own
offices. The scope and scale of the necessary meddling involved is as infinite
as the nature of the "property".
COPYright is about making copies. Anything else is just bogus artistic megalomania.
Re: (Score:2)
I write too quickly. It's true.
Uhh, some of the best benefits are NO control... (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the beauty of the library is the copyright owner/author/interest holder is NOT able to control access to the work. How many publishers would love to say "this book is for retail sale only: all lending is prohibited" on all their books?
Sometimes, the interest is maximized when the copyright owner/author/interest holder does NOT have control.
I think, under a slight variation (ALL others can be under the same terms as google), the proposed Google settlement would be a good thing.
(Of course, with Google getting effective exclusivity under this agreement, I think its a bad thing, but for a very different reason).
Doublethink (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that Ms. LeGuin is engaging in a bit of doublethink: How exactly is anything "free" while it's simultaneously "controlled"?
(Not to mention, of course, that claiming "legitimate right" is begging the question...)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom *is* Slavery.
Her statement seems inconsistent. (Score:5, Insightful)
The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media. All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it.
Her statements here appear contradictory. She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries, but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination. But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!
Re:Her statement seems inconsistent. (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, the "dissemination" in a library is indeed tightly controlled. A library cannot lend out more copies then they purchase, and the lending is according to some rules. Libraries do not allow copying and redistribution, for example.
The second point is what Google is proposing today is one thing, and what happens in the future, should their forced opt-out agreement hold, is quite another. They may use their control over the content in ways that are unforeseen today and extremely unfavorable to authors. No part of their proposed agreement says what they can and cannot do in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, the "dissemination" in a library is indeed tightly controlled. A library cannot lend out more copies then they purchase,
True, and that's a good point.
and the lending is according to some rules.
Ahh, but it is the library that makes these rules, not the author!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually it is an evil group conspiracy! involving the publisher, library, the law, and physics:
Exactly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!
Yes they do. If the library purchases one copy of a book, they can only loan out one copy of that book. They can't take it into the back room and make thirty copies of it. That's because... wait for it... the author and/or publisher maintains copyright control of that book.
Re: (Score:2)
But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!
Her statements are contradictory, but not for this reason. In fact, you have failed the semantics test. Copyright holders most certainly have control over the dissemination of information in books in public libraries, including eBooks. You must purchase one copy for each loan you wish to make. Libraries use DRM on internet eBook loaning (except as permitted by the publisher) to prevent multiple-loaning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Her statements here appear contradictory. She says that electronic books should be available as books are available in libraries, but goes on to say that copyright holders must control their dissemination. But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!
You're right but the biggest problem is the phrase 'information and literature.' I have a bigger problem with her logic that information should be controlled. Had she said 'arts and literature' I would have written a lengthy response attempting to identify with her or at least asking what her desired end state is. But when you start to advocate control of information, you kind of lose me on pure principle.
Now I'm not naive enough to think that fiction and nonfiction are a pure dichotomy and would op
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But copyright holders have no control over the dissemination of books in public libraries!
Actually, they do. To get permission to distribute a book in libraries, the library must purchase the book, or at least receive it via a chain of physical ownership that begins with someone purchasing the book. And even then, the library cannot simply sell or otherwise distribute additional copies they make of the book.
What Le Guin is complaining about here is that, unlike the deal she made with her publisher to make and sell copies of her books, the Google deal is being forced upon her by organizations she
On limited times (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironically, given the state of copyright legislation, it seems that a good compromise position would be to ditch the Google Book Settlement (reverting control to authors) and slash the duration of copyright to a tiny fraction of its current amount (opening a vast amount of works into the public domain -- and into electronic archives). Google and other companies could then negotiate terms with authors for rights to enter newer works into their archives as well. Offhand, I'd target between five to twenty years or so, possibly varying in that range depending on renewals, etc.
Re:On limited times (Score:5, Interesting)
Some economic studies done have shown that the original 14/28 year lifespan on copyright produces the most incentive to authors while still allowing the works to become the basis of new works within the lifespan of the original purchasers of that work.
Begs question (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*casts fireward on himself*
Re:Begs question (Score:4, Insightful)
From the site you linked to:
Sure sounds like LeGuin is begging the question to me. That's exactly what the quote from the summary shows her to be doing. Unless the summary didn't bother including the rationale for her argument, I'd say she's begging the question.
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media."
ok
"All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it."
huh? you just logically countered your initial statement
either its free, or there's control. i love ursula k leguin. in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar. it was a short story of hers, i forget the name, and she played it like a horror movie instead. but leguin isn't seeing the bigger picture here, despite her prodigious and keen powers of insight as shown in her works of fiction. kinda like the mathematics professor who can't balance his checkbook, i guess
"We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control."
i agree 100%. except that already happened many decades ago, and has only gotten worse. existing copyright law no longer serves creators. it serves distributors
such that creators today actually make out better releasing for free, and deriving ancillary revenue streams from their popularity: advertising, endorsements, personalized content, movie deals, etc.
current copyright law will not serve you to make more money than this all-free-on-the-internet model. it will only serve some asshole in a distribution company. a distribution company that serves no function anymore in the world of the internet
the internet has made ip law defunct. and this aids creators: direct interaction with your consumers. the only people that are hurt is the parasitic middlemen in between
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Will your movie be free on the internet?
An by the way I don't believe google and the internet mean that content has to be free. I am fine with creators who charge to download their works, but I don't download DRM controlled formats. But at the same time I can't really be bothered distributing free copies of stuff I may have downloaded. I have 5 gigabytes of CDs on my laptop which I am not sharing with others, mostly because they would pick on my taste in music...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Vaster than Empires and More Slow", collected in her anthology The Wind's Twelve Quarters [wikipedia.org]
Bounty System. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bounty System. (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't mean it to ashame you. Yours is quite a good idea. So good indeed that it has been proved successful: you told nothing but a story published by the chapter, a very common way for a writer to make money, especially during the XIX century (the only difference being that instead of rising a public bounty is was a deal directly between the author and the periodic publisher): that's the way people like Dumas, Poe, Conan Doyle and a lot of others made a living.
As a general matter, reaching a deal *first* and only *then* make the work is a proven way to avoid risking your efforts. The world has changed and now publishing and copying an art work has lost its added value for the most part... so what? Find a different means to reach a deal *first* and work *after* that and you'll be safe. History has shown a lot of different ways to acomplish that.
And then, all this issue about "rigths" and "think of the authors!" begs the cite from Robert Heinlein (I hope this one to become such a common meme that will shut up RIAA et al. right on their first word):
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Robert A. Heinlein, Life-Line (1939)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Ursula Le Guin is old and senile (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyrights are a detriment to human progress. When Benjamen Franklin and others created the idea of the public library, it was so that people could free themselves from ignorance and use their new found knowledge to create a better life for themselves and posterity. Now in the year 2010, that dream dream of free knowledge for freedoms sake is very very sick. In the USA, libraries are shutting down earlier and earlier, and the masses are kept satiated with a steady supply of pointless entertainment, and meaningless work. Copyright "rights holders" want to keep you in ignorance and beholden to them for knowledge.
However there is hope on the horizon. Thanks to the up-coming and inevitable e-book revolution, the written word will be free from the printed page, and those that would control those pages. Let us burn down the publishing houses, and give a Kindle to every man, women and child. Those that want to make a living of the work and sweat of others e.g. Publishing houses, the Author's guild, and the descendants of the writers who still want to be Paid 70 plus years after the actual author's body has been eaten by worms should find themselves dead in the street.
Ursula Le Guin did some good work in her day. We should respect Ms. Guin, like we respect a slightly senile and kindly Grandma, but we should not let our lives by run by your old grandparents.
-Strike a blow for freedom today, by downloading an illegal e-book today and reading it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, my Kindle has increased my reading dramatically. Now that I have thousands of public domain e-texts at my disposal, I have brushed up on early American history (Benjamin Franklin) and Marry Shelly. I would never have been acquainted with these authors, unless the Kindle had been invented. So I thank Amazon for doing a little be to better my literacy, and make my world a little less barren.
As for your point about people willingly entertaining themselves to death;
If lawyers can sue Mc. Donald's f
Unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
If copyright laws were the same way as they were 100 years ago there would be cooperation from the public. But these days copyright has gone way too far in many ways including fair use restrictions as well as lasting for way too many years. Content creators are getting too much protection as it now stands.
Without getting into the meat... (Score:3, Insightful)
"But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it."
Simply speaking, if something is controlled by any entity, it is thereby not free and open in the truest sense of all words involved. Controlled != free. What she really means is, "I'm trying to appeal to the sense freedom and openness in many communities but I really want to be sure I can always continue to make money on my books."