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

Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

But the real question is ... what is she doing out of the kitchen?

Re:the parental model

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Your wife can be buried to rot in that dress for all I care. Now, preventing every woman from making a similar dress is STUPID. That's what copyright is."

Nobody is saying don't go out and write a story in the style of your favorite author. They are saying the story the author wrote is theirs. Buy the right to read it if you want, but don't steal it, make copies, and give them away.

Re:Which corporations does Le Guin mean?

[Geoffrey.landis]

"The google-model is opt-out-- "unless you specifically contact us and tell us not to, we now have your implied permission to use your work.""

But as opt-out is currenty LEGAL, I don't see a problem.

It is?

I want your car. I will pick it up at my convenience, and will pay you one dollar per day for as long as I use it. You may opt out of this contract, but unless you specifically opt out (by certified letter to my home address), you consent to this agreement and the above terms.
Thanks!

Re:the parental model

[Zero__Kelvin]

"The moment you made a million copies, you made it public."

So what you are saying is that Microsoft Windows is owned by the general public. You need to accept that you haven't thought this thing through at all, or you will go through the rest of your life making ridiculous claims that can be refuted with a single point like the one I just made. The first step to solving a problem is accepting you have one and understanding what it is. Right now your problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about, but keep talking anyway.

Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.

[Zero__Kelvin]

They lied to you. Study time a little better.

Alicia Silverstone, is that you?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Next time you use a big word like 'audacity' make sure you understand at least a little bit of the issue at hand."

ROTFLMAO. I understand it perfectly (but it is telling that you think audacity is a big word)

"The discussion is about someone seeing and liking that dress and making a copy of it.

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.

Re:Her statement seems inconsistent.

[Zero__Kelvin]

You chose to infer what I clearly did not in any manner way shape or form imply. I identified how it works now. You cannot solve a problem unless you first understand it. Is there any part of what I said that you don't understand? I'd be glad to clarify, but don't make ridiculous assertions because when you do you add to the problem. If you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

I WILL claim the truth; I DO understand fully

[Zero__Kelvin]

I picked a great analogy. It works in the physical world but doesn't map to the digital world, just as the system we have pre-digital doesn't map to the digital era. Never the less, the problem is the same, to wit: We need to preserve said fairness somehow

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:

• If there is a simple solution, nobody has found it yet
• A compromise may be the only way to address the issue
• Anybody who claims to understand it, and then says that in the digital world they can just start copying away, and there is no problem, has no clue
• The *AA groups are a bunch of scumbag tyrants
• The fact that thy *AA groups are tyrants shouldn't mean that either the consumer or the creator are SOL
• Right now a lot of people in this thread don't get this, and are saying Fsck the Artist / Author! because they are pissed of at the *AA groups, or they don't like the compromise that was reached

Did I miss anything?