Slashdot Mirror
Ursula Le Guin's Petition Against Google Books
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."
Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.
INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.
CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat
HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.
FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.
MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most
"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.
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...
wha'? where am i?
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?
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.
As a professional code writer (programmer) who agrees with the petition but doesn't have any published books, should I sign or is it not for me and I would harm their process by signing?
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).
Test your net with Netalyzr
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...)
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!
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
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!
This is my sig.
Quoth Strong Bad's fantastic ``Rhythm N' Grammar'' album: ``Ooooh! If you want it to be possessive it's just I-T-S, but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S... scalawag.''
Or you can ask Bob the Angry Flower for grammar advice. (*)
*: Warning. Angry flower may be angry and sneer at you. Or worse.
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.
Le Guin is one of my least favorite writers. This reminds me why.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Why not?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
... and by employing the the ever-ineffective "online petition," she's proven once again that she's clueless about the internet.
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.
"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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Can't say I've heard of 'em. Next....
-Xen
Here is how (I think) I would do it. I start to write a book. I will release a few chapters for free online. I could and would even solicit feedback from these chapters. I now start a bounty. I would want X dollars for my work and a little bit to keep me going. Once I have reached X dollars, I will finish my story and release it as an e-book - free for any and all to read, share and do pretty much anything with besides alter or make money off of. If I fail to reach my bounty - it would be because people didn't want my story - why should I get paid for or release/finish something no one wants? They key to this idea is that I get compensated what I believe I should and get compensated(until a movie studio wants to buy the movie rights). And no one gets denied my literary genius :)
The public does not even need to know how much my bounty is - maybe I would let them know what percentage has been obtained - and if unreached, I would guarantee refunds.
. .
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.
So she wants to share everyone to have access to her books and ideas. I think thats awesome and wonderful.
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.
What? This so now sounds like the RIAA. Your in a catch 22. You can't control information once you free it from its box. It seems like you want your cake and eat it too.
That said I agree that the Google deal is not legit in any shape or form. You can't just force a party into an agreement especially how this one is worded. I hope this might be a turning point where Google is forcing the world to look back onto itself and realize how absurd the copyright laws are in their current state. And eventually copyright reform might occur, but I doubt that will ever happen.
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?
I'm pretty sure I've seen that in print... might have been on a sound recording though.
You can't take the sky from me...
Why would "free and open dissemination of information" be controlled by anyone? how can it be "free and open" and "controlled" at the same time?
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Wow, with a name like that, what would she choose as her porn name?
LeGuin wrote some very interesting books. Unfortunately her stance on copyright is a bit too 20th centure to my taste.
Doctorow: "I did this with the understanding that reproducing, for the purposes of commentary, a single paragraph originally published in a noncommercial venue, was fair use under 17USC, the American copyright statute. Ms Le Guin disagrees, and though I haven't heard from her personally, my understanding is that she disagrees on the basis that taking the whole story can't be fair use. I have taken the piece down. The last thing I wanted to do was quote Ms Le Guin against her wishes, and had I known sooner that she objected to being quoted, I would have removed it sooner. " http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/14/an-apology-to-ursula.html
"Lending" and free are not one and the same. Libraries do lend, but are still controlled by copyright - that is, they cannot allow someone to copy an entire book, but the can lend it out to be read. Likewise, reading online should be okay but downloading (which would allow for unlimited copying) should not. I see nothing contradictory between "free" and "controlled" when you take this into account.
and libraries are not. Google is trying to make money off of someone else's work without paying that person. Libraries are buying the book and then loaning it out for the sake of information, not for profit.
Google can either give money to the authors or a non-profit can be set up, run by the gov even, to do the same.
It's about control! No wait... fans, it's all about the fans!
Now where did I put my cane?
I'm fucking tired of Google related articles, please open googledot.com and discuss this shit there.
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.
but how would you enforce those rules on a million technologically savvy, media hungry, and, most importantly, POOR teenagers
the future is now, get used to it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Once you make something public, it's public. I'm a little biased here-- I write exploits for a living. As soon as more than a handful of people get a look at these, not only does someone publish my work with their own name on it, another group of people goes and modifies the targetted product, destroying the entire work. (which could take up to a year). So fuck artists, really. If you want to retain control of your work, keep it private. We have to.
I support her position
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.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
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?
This is the same mistake another poster made. Go to any library and try to make a photocopy of any of their volumes in its entirety. They will stop you, because they are going along with the copyright scheme where the owner controls the right of making copies, not who is holding on to an individual volume. But of course, that same library is very happy to lend you any of their copies!
Books are more like CDROMs than internet downloads. If I give you a CDROM, I don't have it any more -- I haven't made a copy of it. It sucks that this must be explained to the slashdot crowd, but here we are.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
As a fellow artist I'd like to say that most of her work should be in the public domain anyway. Quit lobbying for a copyright system that really screws everyone over. Do you have enough money to be comfortable? Then shut the fuck up.
Le Guin should take a lesson from her own books. Her novel The Dispossessed portrayed an (imperfect) anarchist-communist society, in which no one owned a thing. They adhered to the maxim "property is theft." In fact, I believe she once claimed that, of all the political theories, anarchist-communism was the one that appealed to her most.
Pity.
and besides, i'm talking about creators self-distributing. let every sleazebag who gets their hands on what is available for free from the creator try to redistribute it at cost second hand. good luck with that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Reason is that copyright terms are so damn stupidly long. Given that a work is not only copyrighted for the life of an author, but for years after that, it is a major problem. What happens if an author has died and you really aren't sure who owns the rights?
If copyright got dialed back to a reasonable term, then I'd say sure, let's not do this. Google can publish anything out of copyright, or anything given to them. However as it stands if you don't have some sort of opt out system it will mean that defacto almost nothing will be available on there.
So she wants to share everyone to have access to her books and ideas. I think thats awesome and wonderful.
What she says, and what you say are too very different things, that is possibly why you don't understand.
Le Guin is disturbed by the settlement's attempt to shift Google Books' right to distribute works from opt-in to opt-out.
And yet in her new petition letter against that act, she is automatically appending as "signatories" all of the authors who had joined her earlier list of authors opposing the settlement, unless they opt-out by tomorrow.
It seems she's quite willing to shift other authors right to sign petitions from opt-in to opt-out when it suits her, so obviously she's not unfamiliar with the impracticalities of tracking them all down to grant permission for book sales, petitions, or anything else.
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.
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 ...
Check out my novel.
Agreed. He would do his thing and let the mice try to bell the cat. He'd find a way to win no matter what the mass did. Lazarus Long was a projection of himself. A grand bastard he was. I miss him.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
---
Science Fiction Books @ Feed Distiller
Who else has an Ursula-le-Guin-inspired Slashdot login? Lowest UserID wins.
Other companies are free to scan their own books. Google was only granted legal exclusivity over their scanned copies. They are licensing their copies. Basically to recoup the however many millions they've spent to scan the books. The Books Rights Registry can license to people other than google...
In addition nothing has passed, a hearing is happening in February.
And yes, this deal does trample on copyright laws, opt-out is clearly not the idea of copyrights. Personally I wish they trampled on it more and had copyright laws changed but that's me.
Pretty sure Google has offered to share their entire library with everyone and anyone, keeping no advantage to themselves whatsoever despite the excessive costs going into the scanning. Obviously it would be better if this were codified by the law, but the de facto result seems to be the right one.
Without getting into whether what she really means is right or wrong, she contradicts herself and she is not being genuine:
"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."
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
What did she write?
> Libraries do not allow copying and redistribution, for example.
Really? You mean that your library doesn't have a copy machine in it? Because every library I've ever seen sure does...
please, that quote is golden, I have read it before but it sure bears repeating
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
What a shame - still, given the revisionist Earthsea sequels, and the constant cat litter references in everything she's written since about 1980, perhaps it's just as well.
Lot of confusion on these issues. What does LeGuin mean? Her writings are quite liberal, but this petition is a petition for control? Authors don't need "control", they need compensation. The purpose of the control they are granted is to give them means to obtain compensation, nothing more. It is not to hold back technology, and not to dictate to others their notions on what constitutes Fair Use as she seems to have done to Doctorow. It's a shame how often haggling over the amounts and potential amounts and alleged and imagined damages obscures the larger issues. And here we have not just anyone, but a smart, talented and liberally inclined writer of science fiction apparently not getting it. Maybe it's her age-- old dogs, new tricks? Well, the issues are complicated.
Since Google's book deal is so complicated, I think the best approach is to turn the issue around. It's not "is Google's book deal evil?" It's "How do we get to a paperless office, and world?"
Well first, do we want a paperless world? Oh yes! Would save a lot of resources that currently goes into paper making, recycling, disposal, transport, ink, printing hardware, etc. How much building space, air conditioning and the like is devoted to book storage? Imagine what sort of a library would be possible: every book, always available, to infinitely many people, and taking far less physical space. Not just books either, but video and audio and who knows what more, maybe Smellovision? Magical indeed! And that still only just touches on the possibilities. As Google has shown, information can be searched. Can also automatically be translated to other languages, read aloud, edited like Wikipedia, reused and run like code, analyzed. We'd be able to do things like pick out new words for dictionaries, run all sorts of statistics and evaluations, use it as test data to see how well some notion works, like this idea of the Word Cloud. What are the most common words and letters? What is most on society's mind, what ideas are most written about?
So, why don't we have all this? We're not there yet only partly for lack of technology. Maybe today a dead tree book is more energy efficent than an ebook. but if not, we're close and I think eventually it will be much more efficient. How about a tap directly into the optic nerve to generate an image of any text desired, powered by body heat or some such? Potentially much better than what we have now, but what we do have now is workable.
No, I don't think technology is the main hold up. It's the law. This wonderful paperless word will not be possible until copyright is radically changed or eliminated.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
"Hey, guys, I used to be a hippie too, but now I've grown up and I want my f***ing money"
"Enormous burden"???? How is having to say to Google "please don't use my work X because it's not orphan" an enormous burden. do you not know what your works are???
And the alternative really DOES place an enormous burden on google (and, indeed anyone): they have to mail EACH AND EVERY INHABITANT OF THIS PLANET a complete list of what they think is orphaned, wait until EVER SINGLE ONE says *specifically* "No".
THEN they can claim it orphaned.
Google isn't screwing her. Her works are not orphaned. They have a real and genuine claimant.
Now, please tell me why, if Le Quim doesn't want to produce a work, should I be told I cannot? She has lost NOTHING except control that wasn't hers to begin with: government had to grant it.
It would also void their contract with author, allowing their competitors to step in. And what is worse, allow free and legitimate digital redistribution. Bye-bye DRM and pay-for-copy business model. No, they would fight to keep her alive.
And EVERYONE gets the freebies. But the corporation who did the deed is the ONLY one who pays the price.
Yeah, let me know how the accountants would figure that one on the profit/loss curve.
movies usually have such a message. If you rent one, it will say something about it being a rental and not for sale. While if you buy one, it will show a message saying its not for rent. In either case it will also prompt the viewer to contact some legal entity if said message is violated.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
is what kind of rights google have managed to negotiate, exactly.
if they make a orphaned work available for download or online reading, can they then claim control under copyright for that work, or can the person that downloaded then make infinite copies to friends or others?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
I've definitely seen it printed on a book, and I took no notice of it. I simply do not believe that (UK) copyright law prevents me from lending a book to a friend.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
ROTFLMAO. I understand it perfectly (but it is telling that you think audacity is a big word)
You have no idea what the discussion is about. You think you do, and I admit I could have picked a better analogy, but on the other hand that works to my favor, as follows:
The real problem is that the situation at hand doesn't map to the digital world without DRM, which we both agree doesn't work and is a horrible idea. You think "But I ownz a 'puter and I knowz everything! It 'aint stealin', its copyin! Gosh, I aint doin nuttin wrong!", whereas I realize that every time I grab a digital copy instead of buying it the person or people that created it, who put lots of time, effort, and talent into creating it, may lose money, unless I then buy it or convince someone else to buy it.
The bottom line it is far more complicated than you know, and you have shown that you are not willing to put in the effort to understand the problem because you think you already have the answer, which is sad, because you are basically about as clueless as one can get.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
physical books are sure, but what about the bitstream on that CDROM? For example look at the World of Warcraft install CDs, no DRM, no fancy "must have disk in cdrom to play" fuck, just download the game from us if you want over the next 6 days. Yes i realise that in order to play you need to be paying and have an active account, but still.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Le Guin is descriminating against those of us who live in rural areas where libraries are not available. It is an hour's travel to get to the nearest library and that is a great way to pickup disease - there be humans there.
"We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control"
Except the book deal has no effect what so ever on the authors copyright. They have the same control as before. The copyright holder can opt-out at any time. The campaign against the Google Books, is being orchestrated by you.know.who.
You aren't upset because my analogy was bad. You are upset because it was perfect (and yes I know I said I could have picked a better one. It took this discussion with you to show me have truly perfect it is.)
So to recap:
Did I miss anything?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I look forward to my employer making a deposit in my account for the next 60 years.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The idea he wants to care for his family in the event of his untimely passing isn't criminal.
The idea that he's set up trusts for his kids is funny though, keep dreaming big I guess.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
This petition is important. I am close friends of some good authors that are quite notable. Google need to get off the ladder and stop making my book collection worthless. This is just basically for Kindle's. Eitherway, I just have one thing to really say; "A book that you can hold in your hand, look back over chapters enhances your senses" When you get in the Bath or shower, just imagine Digital Soap or Shower Gel. That is why all this digitalisation will fail miserably. I sincerely hope my comments knock millions off the share prices! love NSN
All cows eat grass!
copyright: while the author lives and no longer. should unforeseen accidents occur, the family can petition for 15yr extension (1 time only) so they dont become destitute.
Why? Have they trademarked the name? Also, why would that be relevant in a discussion about copyright?
Or are you saying MrHanky is quoting South Park screenplays beyond what you think is fair use? (i.e. saying "Hooooowdy-ho" in every post).
(Also, MrHanky might arguably be a play on the name Hank rather than Hankey.)
Or is there something I'm missing? Exactly what would MrHanky need permission to do, and according to which law(s) and/or case(s)?
That's cool.
Let's say I put a note on my blog, saying "Dear Microsoft; I'm going to distribute copies of any and all software you publish unless you notify me within sixty (60) day after publishing".
Let's say my blog is hosted on my own machine, and I'm diligently keeping it connected to the internet and giving it a DNS name. But I don't advertise it anywhere.
Is Microsoft now required to port-80-scan the entire internet and read everything that is posted? What if I bury the notice deep down in a maze of unrelated content (say, a hyperlinked version of the KJVB)? Are they required to traverse all the link graphs on all web servers on all machines? What about infinite link graphs?
Where's the reasonable limit? What if I advertise my blog, but in general make myself a nobody and don't drive a lot of traffic towards it?
What if I did it to the code made by the company you work for? If it ruined them and they had to fire you, would you be pissed at me? Would you feel justified in being pissed at me?
Do you see the problem?
if it only takes you 5 seconds to say "no" and it only happens one time -- it's not that big of a deal.
Right. If Google is allowed to do this, are others allowed to do it too? Will they? How many times will authors have to say "no"?
Say I set up 10000 shell companies, each saying "I'm going to do xyz with your stuff unless you say 'no'". Then suddenly it's 50000 seconds per author. Plus the author has to find all 10000 shell companies, which might take significantly more than 5 seconds per company.
Setting this precedent could open the field to an arms race of setting up shell companies vs. prohibiting them among the big companies. Any extra cost of doing business impedes the small companies. I'm not sure, but I seem to recall hearing that having a good environment for small companies helps a country's economy.
While I don't object to what Google is doing, I'm worried about what kind of precedent this might set.
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?
I'm not the same "you", but I am saying that. Or rather, I'm saying that I'd be perfectly happy if copyright didn't last longer than the life of the author.
Your family can of course read your book. They have a right to benefit in that way. I take it you think your books are beneficial to read; that's why you can get away with charging money for them, right?
Why should the public benefit but not my family?
Because the benefit the public will gain is larger than the benefit your family will gain.
If my family isn't going to be allowed to benefit from my work then I'd rather do something with my time they are allowed to retain so they can live without going on welfare if I happen to die young.
I'm glad to hear you aren't completely hung up on being a writer.
Are you raising your kids to be dependent on your ability to provide them with money? Wouldn't you rather want them to be able to earn a living on their own? If they are, why is it so important what you can leave them?
Why should the public have rights over and above the creator?
It doesn't. The public is giving away its inherent right to copy and (re)distribute information (selectively).
It does so in order to create a financial incentive for writers, musicians, film makers and software programmers (that's me) to do work which benefits the public.
The public does this (in the ideal case) based on an evaluation which says that the freedoms and right given up are less valuable than the work created by the incentive put in place by giving up the freedoms and rights.
If you don't want to play ball, you're free to not write books. You're free to tell us exactly which restrictions you want us to place on ourselves for you to write books. We're free to listen, or not, depending on what we feel like. But you're not the one to tell us which rights we can and can't exercise. We, the public, decides what our rights are. As a member of the public, you're of course welcome to participate in this decision process, but don't expect your wishes to have a disproportionate influence.
If I built investment houses for a living there wouldn't be a debate about taking them away from my family after I died.
And if you built bit strings, there wouldn't be a debate about going into your house a deleting the bit strings from your hard drive. And there isn't.
And if you built houses, there wouldn't be a debate about building identical houses, not when you're alive, and not when you're dead. And there isn't.
See, because we have efficient copying machinery for the things you produce, there's a value/cost disparity: the cost of production is almost independent of the number of copies. The value is almost linear in the number of copies (not everybody who reads your books enjoys it equally, but more copies means more enjoyment). Thus, the most valuable use of a book you've written is to make as many copies as possible, up to the point where the value is less than the cost of the electricity and disk space used to copy and store the book. (Note that we can't copy houses efficiently: it takes a lot of labour. That's why they're different.)
Do you want to destroy things of value? Do you want to sabotage the public's wealth? Why? For your own benefit? I want to dump my poisonous radioactive waste in the public river because it's cheap. Should I be allowed to do that? Why is it that nuclear power plant operations are so discriminated against?
The French would disagree with this. They have single handedly foisted on the world ever longer copyrights since the 19th century.
You're supposed to blame Canada!
If someone owns a copyright to a book but doesn't make it available to readers, then they aren't actually 'publishing' the book. They are definitely controlling access like Ursula says, but they aren't helping out the thousands of authors google planned to actually make available to readers for free.