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."
"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.
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?
Why not?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
Copyright law. The whole thing is a paradoxical balance between control by the author and the freedom of users to (for example) quote excerpts of the work for purposes of "fair use", or loan a book to someone else (library or individually) regardless of the author's wishes. Control with limits. Eventually, the whole thing expires to the public domain and people are free to do what they want with it.
It's not "doublethink", it's the balance between competing interests that is inherent in copyright.
People are reading her statement as if it was unintentionally contradictory. She's not dumb.
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.
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
Actually, it is pretty clear that excerpts of modest size are allowed most of the time under fair use, but the whole work (even if it is short) becomes a lot more debatable. There are still occasions when quoting/reproducing an entire work is okay, but these are less common.
If I was Doctorow, I sure wouldn't have quoted the whole of LeGuin's "On Serious Literature" story without seeking permission first. Look at it. It's pretty long, and what Doctorow did by quoting the whole thing was was therefore pretty dumb. Just because something is formatted as a "single paragraph" does not automatically mean quoting it is carte blanche okay, and usually if you are going to do that sort of thing (use something in its entirety) you do ask the author. See, it's this part that bugs me from Doctorow's comment:
"However, I still believe that my quotation was fair use."
That's a big HUH? from me. I'm not a lawyer, but, no, it almost certainly wasn't, and how Doctorow could fail to understand this is beyond my comprehension, especially after he "discussed it with copyright scholars". Yeah, he's technically right that "the proportion of the work in quotation is one factor in determining fair use, but not the only one", and he's right that "fair use" isn't something that is always clear, but did he ask how likely it would be for *his* use in *this*instance* to qualify for "fair use"? I bet the same batch of copyright scholars would reply with something like: "It's not impossible, but it has about a snowball's chance in hell".
I don't think any of this means LeGuin doesn't understand these things or has an archaic understanding of copyright (although I think she is wrong to imply copying an entire work is always not fair use, even if she is probably right in this instance). I think it means she understands copyright law and common courtesy pretty well, while Doctorow was way off, and she was justifiably miffed with him. The whole thing is an "I apologize, but still think I was right in the first place" apology. Not very satisfying.
Stephen King tried something like this and it failed. Why? Because no-one wants to read part of a book and then wait in the hope that they may get to see the rest later. If an already famous author can't swing this then I don't think Master Moose can...
I look forward to my employer making a deposit in my account for the next 60 years.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.