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."
Not sure what Ursula has in mind, but I think that copyright is one thing the Founders got right back in 1790.
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...)
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.
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 have a problem with copyright law as it once was written, which is to say that copyrights actually expired. But I do have a problem with an author who doesn't understand the language in which they write. I'm done buying LeGuin books, and yes, I do buy books new, and that has included several of hers.
Does this remind anyone else of a certain Metallica-related event?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
. .
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, well then. I guess you post here and get 300 other slashdotters to mod up your posts for each other's approbation.
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
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?
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...
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Use? I thought copyright was about COPYing.
It covers more than that, including public performance (say, playing the radio at work), and modifying existing copies.
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.
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.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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 for making hot coffee, why can't we hold the cable TV corporations for retarding a generation.
-Regards
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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).
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
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.
The 'Disney model' in this discussion (ie, vs the 'Google model') is about a copyright holder, well, holding a copyright. The 'Google model' is about the "free and open dissemination of information and literature". It sounds like Le Guin is convinced that without a Disney model to finance authors, there can't be a Google model to make the work widely available. Even if such were true, trying to attack the 'Google model' only works towards stopping the "free and open dissemination of information and literature". If Le Guin truly believes that 'the Sonny Bono act as "the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system"', work towards reducing copyright's term should be where she should be petitioning. But, then, I guess, she thinks she can possibly win a PR fight against Google and not against Disney.
If the 'Authors Guild' doesn't represent her, then it doesn't represent her. She can readily issue a takedown message toward her book with Google as if the Authors Guild negotiation had not been signed or existed. Google brazenly putting up books without getting an author's permission, directly or indirectly, is no different than ROM sites putting up ROMs without seeking approval of the copyright holder. Takedown messages tend to be the extent of the legal action, but there's nothing stopping Le Guin from suing Google is she feels so strongly about it.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Copyright is about protecting publishers' rights, not the creators'
In the C18th yes, but in C19th, C20th and C21st copyright law it is actually the creators' rights that are protected.
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.
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 expect more from somebody as educated as Le Guin is. Kneejerk reactionaries should be left to MSNBC and CNN.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Just play along.
This is exactly what we need. It does not hurt me that some authors get a bit pissed off. However, googles deal with put a crack in the whole copyright system.
We need such cracks. It is too hard for individuals to put them there, so let google do the work.
Then, once they have the deal for some time. Set up competing services and if you get problems, get a lawyer to get the same deal (you must have some
kind of equality principle there in the US?). Google is just the hammer we need.
How many writers still sell their books more than 14 years after they're first published?
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.
So when something is the product of your hands it should be different to the product of your mind? why should it be treated differently?
Both a book and a chair are products of the mind. A specific instantiation of the chair has the additional constraints that raw materials were required to construct it and that some physical skill and wear was required to form and assemble it. It's quite common for chairs to be copied, though generally the raw materials and workmanship that go into the copy are of lower quality than the original, and decrease the total value of the original only slightly.
The chair creator expects physically participate in each instantiation of his chair and expects to be paid for each instantiation and to recoup his costs on each instance. The book creator has no expectation to participate in the production and distribution of their book, but they expect to be paid for effort that may take the publisher years and tens of thousands of instances to recoup. The author/publisher expects to be paid gradually, over years (14-1400 years, depending on the author), for their creativity today. Because the creative aspect of the chair is so closely linked to the unique physical object, it's easy for us to assign the creative aspect to the value of that one object. It's difficult to directly value the creative aspect. How much would you pay for a Maloof chair made by Joe the Carpenter? Because the physical effort of creating a book is such a small, and relatively unskilled, fraction of the creative effort, it's much more difficult to assign a value to a single book, let alone the sum of all the copies that will ever be made.
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.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
We're discussing Disney protecting the character "Mickey Mouse."
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.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.