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."

Comments

Uhh, some of the best benefits are NO control...

[nweaver]

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

[chrylis]

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...)

Bounty System.

[Master Moose]

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.

Re:Bounty System.

[turbidostato]

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)

Re:On limited times

[tinkerghost]

Offhand, I'd target between five to twenty years or so, possibly varying in that range depending on renewals, etc.

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.

Re:the parental model

[Anonymous Coward]

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's stance on copyright is so 20th century

[kasper_souren]

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

Re:Author's deserve to be paid!

[0123456]

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:Which corporations does Le Guin mean?

[countertrolling]

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:Ursula Le Guin is old and senile

[harrytuttle777]

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

Re:the parental model

[Draek]

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).

Re:Absolutely!

[remmelt]

How many writers still sell their books more than 14 years after they're first published?

Re:Author's deserve to be paid!

[DerekLyons]

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?

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.

Re:Absolutely!

[hitmark]

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.