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."
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".
Her copyright on her work in the US already exists for her lifetime. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act, US copyright law already exists for the "life of the author plus 70 years ...".
Le Guin does not in fact support the 'Disney model', e.g. here:
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Copyright.html
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.
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."
New? 162 years? The registration bullshit is of course U.S. only, not elsewhere (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.
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.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Copyright is about protecting publishers' rights, not the creators'
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.
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.
Just saying it like it are.
This article does not specifically cover non-exclusivity, but that was another issue that changed in the revision.