Here's Your Door: Lady or the Tiger?
Jan. 20th, 2010 09:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lagilmanEtA2: I am told that Paul Aiken, in Thursday's podcast mtg, took specific exception to my notes and opinions when someone linked to them. *is amused* Is that fame? Rereading my notes, I stand by what I wrote, both the notating of what was said and my own questions and opinions. If he has a problem with my opinion of the Settlement, he would do well to consider the objections rather than dismissing them as uninformed or irrelevant.
EtA: because it came up in an off-page discussion, here's the link to the petition letter Ursula K LeGuin started, to be sent to the Google Settlement judge, of which (to which?) I am a signatory: http://www.ursulakleguin.com/UKL_info.html
--------------------------------
Today, I spent three hours in a conference room in Manhattan, attending a seminar on the Google Settlement.
Sponsored jointly by the American Society of Journalists and Authors, ASJA, the National Writers Union, NWU, and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, SFWA, this seminar brought together the best-versed authorities on what the second version of the Google Book Search Settlement would mean for writers if it is approved by the court, before the second opt-out deadline next week.
Much of the public debate has settled on other aspects, like orphan books, yet writers are still confused about what the proposed, new Book Rights Registry would mean for us, because there seems to be so much conflicting rulings and requirements about both out of print and in-print works.
If anyone here isn’t familiar with the Google Settlement or the background thereof, I direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_Agreement which gives a decent if incomplete overview. [I feel like major fail for not doing a concise wrap-up, but the truth is that there’s no way to do a concise anything of the situation -- it’s damned complicated and even the lawyers involved admit they’re hand-waving and hoping over a lot of it. Hence the need for public discussion, open airing of concerns, and some clear (or at least forthright) answers.]
Personally I went into this seminar having decided -- after a lot of thought, discussion, and industry-knowledge wibbling, to opt-in and request my short fiction be taken out of the database, but my novels left in. I did this because I believed that staying in left me with more control over how my work might be used than opting out… but it was a game of inches.
In light of the revised settlement, I had the chance to reconsider my position considering the changes made (and not made). I had hoped to hear something that would tip me one way or the other, since we are obligated to decide before the Settlement is ratified, or indeed even clarified.
What follows are my notes, slightly but not entirely cleaned up, of what transpired in today’s meeting. Please be aware that these are my notes, with my own commentary, and are not to be considered anything more than observations, and a jumping off point for your own investigation. Comments in italics and brackets are my own words/thoughts. Please forgive typos, incomplete sentences, and occasional lack of temper...
----------------
The set-up was that the three main guests would speak for 15 minutes, then commentary from the hosts & questions from audience.
Paul Aiken, the AG Executive Director, was the up first., since it was the Authors Guild that brokered this agreement as part of the Class Action suit He introduced several other members in the audience, then launched into his defense of the Settlement (and really, that’s the only way I can describe it).
First he gave background of “Library project” as it started (scanning OP and out of copyright books) which was fine. Then in 1994 decided to scan everything, claiming it was fair use under “snippets” philosophy -- making money off selling ads alongside. AG claimed even snippets was not ‘fair use’ since they were going to make money off it. Would return the scans to the U of Mich, who would have use of it all. AG sued to stop them (class action). May 2006 settlement meeting, wherein AG proposed entire books of OP books so long as publishers/authors got a cut. (“cut us in or cut it out”)
4 things to know
1. Treats in print books and op books differently
(OP in displays, IP books by default NOT in display (unless publisher/author agreed)
2. Usage domestic (US) only
3. Images not part of the settlement, only text (“except certain instances)
4. Establishes book rights registry -- which AG controls/gets a cut of (he avoided that fact) Follows ASCAP model (which, by my musician friends opinions, sucks) [what does AG get off this registry? How are their administrative costs determined/monitored?]
Security protocol established that Google must follow or pay penalties. Open to audits by registry. U of Mich must also sign on and face penalties.
Displays allowed, on approval
1. Public access display (any library, if chosen, can display entirety of OP text, view-only
-- there is a pay-per-print option, fee per page
2. Preview use up to 20% of a book -- there may be ads, and revenues generated shared with rights holders
3. Purchase of online consumer edition (author sets price or Google sets price)
4. Institutional purchases to view for a year the db of OP books (academic usage). Income shared with rights holders
-- money float: Google collects & keeps 33% Passes on 66% to registry. Registry keeps undetermined fee, then pays the rest to rights holders (split between reverted/unreverted rights)
[why can’t they set the fee? That makes me very unhappy -- not going to agree to terms without knowing what the fees are for a library card, much less a business contract]
5. IN print books -- publisher gets 100% and passes along as per contract
Arbitration right: have right to take publisher to arbitration if disagree with publisher’s decision on revenue cut/expedited revision rights to ensure it is taken out of the registry within a timely manner [author controlled]
[How are we to make sure material is NOT included, ongoing? What is the procedure to police that? Is the onus on the author to ensure Google is abiding by the agreement? Yes - have to treat them like pirates -- send a takedown notice. The author must defend their work; neither Google nor the registry will self-regulate.]
Prof James Grimmelmann spoke next, with a more academic understanding of effects on writers as well as institutions. Thinks there are three big things to think about, beyond basics.
A
1. Possibility of expansion of market -- new way to deliver works to readers.
2. Question of rights/ownership - how much money do I stand to make in immediate costs, after splits? How much can I make over the longer term (wildly unknown)
3. This was a lawsuit over scanning.-- settlement is about opening up new forms and markets. That’s the big picture. Let go of anger at Google (and AG) and focus on what exists (He thinks we would have lost in trial)
4. Alignment of interest between authors and readers. Two sides -- too many restrictions vs. too few restrictions. Readers have to give up privacy too -- they’re tracked.
5. Compensation -- everyone loses if there isn’t a good copyright system to encourage new creation of work.
6. Look at it wearing hat as reader, too.
7. Possibility of disadvantaging authors, undermining authors.
B.
The transition to digital -- really hard to keep track of what’s going to happen. Makes Google a major player in the academic market. Concern about letting Google become a default Major Player
C.
Copyright policy questions here being decided by class action -- how should issues like this be settled? It’s not clear class action is the right way, especially when covering so many licenses… it should be done in a way that is more accountable, and not spearheaded by a single org (aka AG) doesn’t properly represent all involved.
Thepublicindex.org a web site with legal documents and commentary relating to the settlement.
Next up was Lynn Chu, esq (agent, lawyer), who was very much opposed to the Settlement.
-- main problem with the settlement is that it hasn’t been properly reviewed, the crux of the issue of interest in “droit moral” being released to Google as a business deal that is (in her option) incorrectly structured, passing the publisher’s costs of administration onto the author, eliminating the market process (the right to negotiate the agreement/right to seek other publishers). [YES! EXACTLY THE POINT] Creating a CC-NA license for Google via article 10, which is against individual rights/informed consent. Class action not a properly binding mechanism for this. Does NOT believe there is any “orphan books” issue. “Attempt to do legislation through the courts,” thins the “orphan issue” an invention of the lobby of Google/online publishers, to shift costs. It all leads to putting onus/costs on authors, rather than corps hiring $25/hour paralegals to do research (the “registry admin fee”. Also eliminates market competition . As a purely financial matter, this is a very bad idea. She believes it’s an illegal settlement and will be thrown out, eventually.
“Forced” into arbitration under registry, rewriting principles of common law that were favorable to authors into ones favorable to publishers. “Search rights” not expressly granted in any contract, despite publishers licensing the rights. Random House explicitly exempts those rights, forex.
Google is exonerated from all acts of hacking/destruction after a relatively small sum (vis recent Chinese hacking as example of how vulnerable they are). “Exercise in cost-shifting” Highly recs that people opt out -- better off without the agreement, force them to come back and try again with something better structured. “opt-out is abusive“
Paul then comes in and disputes. Claims the rights clearance would “swamp” the agreement if done otherwise. (seemed to be arguing Google’s interests, not ours, there. Still does not approach who will be policing Google) Doesn’t address how Google’s settlement would prevent piracy, which he claims it does (to create/serve new markets) Lynn comes back that settlement has cut out individual rights -- audit is subsumed by corporate secrecy etc. No evaluation of assets of database before settlement made [how the hell could they not do an asset evaluation before setting prices? Sloppy business, sloppy advocacy.] Takes away individuals discretion to dispose of their own property with preemptive sale.
She uses the term “contracts of adhesion” -- A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.
Salley Shannon -- president of ASJA
Questions she asked:
- talking about reversion, but in reality, isn’t the new default now that publishers will never allow rights to revert? [his response -- yes, but the settlement didn’t really contribute to that. I have to agree]
[point raised that author cut is after agency cut, too. That $60/book? More like $20, eventually.]
How is registry going to be determining who the owner is? If there’s a dispute, who will decide? Will registry have access to contracts? (serious violation of privacy!)
At this point, Paul gets defensive, makes comments like “your vivid imagination” and “big old scary Google.” He’s not winning style points with me, at least.
Michael Capobianco, former President of SFWA
Main problems:
Opt-out nature of the program. If you’re the rights holder you should have a say. End of story. It shouldn’t be dependent upon the rights holder showing up and announcing themselves through all the required hoops. Assumes computer access/computer familiarity//internet connectivity that’s reliable.
Asking writers to have knowledge of law/business beyond what is required/usual by field… and penalizing them for that lack of experience or knowledge, considering even lawyers aren‘t agreeing on what this settlement means, or how people will be affected.
[and once again, Paul is snide about people who disagreed with him, saying “among people who understand” the settlement, there isn’t concern. Um…. A snide rejoinder wins you no converts.]
-Conflation of “orphaned works” with OP books
-Doesn’t think publishers should get any money from OP books.
Salley points out that ASCAP a) is opt-in and b) has 2x been sued for fraud and exists under eye of court.
PAUL LEAVES BEFORE THE Q&A PERIOD -- “has a piano recital,” he says. I try to ask a question about how the panel overseeing the registry, get non-answer that boils down to “we‘ll worry about that later.” A second question from someone else is given the same sort of non-answer, and then he’s gone.
[note; if you hear a female voice pushing him on details from the audience during the recording of this? Yeah, that’s me. I am not shy of speaking up when I feel I‘m being given the run-around, no.]
Edward Hasbrouck, NWU
-Money grossly inadequate
- pass-on left in hands of publishers
- no guarantee for future use, and better deals are already available (submitting directly to Google, rather than being part of the settlement)
Opt-out process -- forfeit control of right, and bound by whatever the settlement is determined after the fact to mean. Nobody knows what the settlement actually means/will be interpreted.
Proposed settlement will affect relationships with existing print publishers, connecting them to players and terms to be determined later, rather than established & agreed-upon contracts.
Settlement requires you to assume best case scenario/honesty that you’ll get a fair share, rather than having to fight for it. He doubts that.
Prof JG’s response to that: suspects most will be consumed in fees and doled out sloooowly while navigating ambiguity and complexity of the agreement.
Reminded that DoJ said “publishers will be in control of the registry” based on the way the terms are structured.
---
General comments: opting in is an orderly way to get things offline. Opting out and you lose the ability to control it. It’s a conundrum.
In amended: you don’t have to list everything to opt-out (as per Lynn)
“safer opting out -- reserving rights at-law” Article 10 completely waive all rights vis prior rights (as per Lynn)
File objection to judge re: requirement to be on-line to be involved -- puts a hardship on authors who are not living on-line, don’t have regular e-mail or internet access, etc. Can’t reach everyone so they have the opportunity to opt-out.
---------------------------------
So what we have, folks, is a mess. Which we knew. The AG can’t say for certain how things will be administrated, how much might be paid out, or who will handle the administration. No specifics about anything, other than “it will help create new markets.“ Except those markets are already being created, outside of Google (Fictionwise, Amazon, BookView Café, etc) Opponents can’t say that opting out is better, just that opting in is abusive to your rights (but opting out loses your ability to be involved, except to sue individually.
I freely admit that my reaction to all this was deeply, deeply influenced by the tone of the AG Executive Director. I am told that he‘s a nice guy, but I found him dismissive of concerns raised, he did not answer questions put directly to him, and when asked about pending structures that would have great impact but haven’t yet been established, he threw out best case scenarios and would not address concerns. In short, he acted like an employee/shareholder of Google rather than an advocate of authors.
I am not reassured.
And I have to make my final decision -- opt in, or opt-out? -- this week.
And, if you have published anything in the past that you hold copyright to -- so do you.
I hope this was helpful...
EtA: because it came up in an off-page discussion, here's the link to the petition letter Ursula K LeGuin started, to be sent to the Google Settlement judge, of which (to which?) I am a signatory: http://www.ursulakleguin.com/UKL_info.html
--------------------------------
Today, I spent three hours in a conference room in Manhattan, attending a seminar on the Google Settlement.
Sponsored jointly by the American Society of Journalists and Authors, ASJA, the National Writers Union, NWU, and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, SFWA, this seminar brought together the best-versed authorities on what the second version of the Google Book Search Settlement would mean for writers if it is approved by the court, before the second opt-out deadline next week.
Much of the public debate has settled on other aspects, like orphan books, yet writers are still confused about what the proposed, new Book Rights Registry would mean for us, because there seems to be so much conflicting rulings and requirements about both out of print and in-print works.
If anyone here isn’t familiar with the Google Settlement or the background thereof, I direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_Agreement which gives a decent if incomplete overview. [I feel like major fail for not doing a concise wrap-up, but the truth is that there’s no way to do a concise anything of the situation -- it’s damned complicated and even the lawyers involved admit they’re hand-waving and hoping over a lot of it. Hence the need for public discussion, open airing of concerns, and some clear (or at least forthright) answers.]
Personally I went into this seminar having decided -- after a lot of thought, discussion, and industry-knowledge wibbling, to opt-in and request my short fiction be taken out of the database, but my novels left in. I did this because I believed that staying in left me with more control over how my work might be used than opting out… but it was a game of inches.
In light of the revised settlement, I had the chance to reconsider my position considering the changes made (and not made). I had hoped to hear something that would tip me one way or the other, since we are obligated to decide before the Settlement is ratified, or indeed even clarified.
What follows are my notes, slightly but not entirely cleaned up, of what transpired in today’s meeting. Please be aware that these are my notes, with my own commentary, and are not to be considered anything more than observations, and a jumping off point for your own investigation. Comments in italics and brackets are my own words/thoughts. Please forgive typos, incomplete sentences, and occasional lack of temper...
----------------
The set-up was that the three main guests would speak for 15 minutes, then commentary from the hosts & questions from audience.
Paul Aiken, the AG Executive Director, was the up first., since it was the Authors Guild that brokered this agreement as part of the Class Action suit He introduced several other members in the audience, then launched into his defense of the Settlement (and really, that’s the only way I can describe it).
First he gave background of “Library project” as it started (scanning OP and out of copyright books) which was fine. Then in 1994 decided to scan everything, claiming it was fair use under “snippets” philosophy -- making money off selling ads alongside. AG claimed even snippets was not ‘fair use’ since they were going to make money off it. Would return the scans to the U of Mich, who would have use of it all. AG sued to stop them (class action). May 2006 settlement meeting, wherein AG proposed entire books of OP books so long as publishers/authors got a cut. (“cut us in or cut it out”)
4 things to know
1. Treats in print books and op books differently
(OP in displays, IP books by default NOT in display (unless publisher/author agreed)
2. Usage domestic (US) only
3. Images not part of the settlement, only text (“except certain instances)
4. Establishes book rights registry -- which AG controls/gets a cut of (he avoided that fact) Follows ASCAP model (which, by my musician friends opinions, sucks) [what does AG get off this registry? How are their administrative costs determined/monitored?]
Security protocol established that Google must follow or pay penalties. Open to audits by registry. U of Mich must also sign on and face penalties.
Displays allowed, on approval
1. Public access display (any library, if chosen, can display entirety of OP text, view-only
-- there is a pay-per-print option, fee per page
2. Preview use up to 20% of a book -- there may be ads, and revenues generated shared with rights holders
3. Purchase of online consumer edition (author sets price or Google sets price)
4. Institutional purchases to view for a year the db of OP books (academic usage). Income shared with rights holders
-- money float: Google collects & keeps 33% Passes on 66% to registry. Registry keeps undetermined fee, then pays the rest to rights holders (split between reverted/unreverted rights)
[why can’t they set the fee? That makes me very unhappy -- not going to agree to terms without knowing what the fees are for a library card, much less a business contract]
5. IN print books -- publisher gets 100% and passes along as per contract
Arbitration right: have right to take publisher to arbitration if disagree with publisher’s decision on revenue cut/expedited revision rights to ensure it is taken out of the registry within a timely manner [author controlled]
[How are we to make sure material is NOT included, ongoing? What is the procedure to police that? Is the onus on the author to ensure Google is abiding by the agreement? Yes - have to treat them like pirates -- send a takedown notice. The author must defend their work; neither Google nor the registry will self-regulate.]
Prof James Grimmelmann spoke next, with a more academic understanding of effects on writers as well as institutions. Thinks there are three big things to think about, beyond basics.
A
1. Possibility of expansion of market -- new way to deliver works to readers.
2. Question of rights/ownership - how much money do I stand to make in immediate costs, after splits? How much can I make over the longer term (wildly unknown)
3. This was a lawsuit over scanning.-- settlement is about opening up new forms and markets. That’s the big picture. Let go of anger at Google (and AG) and focus on what exists (He thinks we would have lost in trial)
4. Alignment of interest between authors and readers. Two sides -- too many restrictions vs. too few restrictions. Readers have to give up privacy too -- they’re tracked.
5. Compensation -- everyone loses if there isn’t a good copyright system to encourage new creation of work.
6. Look at it wearing hat as reader, too.
7. Possibility of disadvantaging authors, undermining authors.
B.
The transition to digital -- really hard to keep track of what’s going to happen. Makes Google a major player in the academic market. Concern about letting Google become a default Major Player
C.
Copyright policy questions here being decided by class action -- how should issues like this be settled? It’s not clear class action is the right way, especially when covering so many licenses… it should be done in a way that is more accountable, and not spearheaded by a single org (aka AG) doesn’t properly represent all involved.
Thepublicindex.org a web site with legal documents and commentary relating to the settlement.
Next up was Lynn Chu, esq (agent, lawyer), who was very much opposed to the Settlement.
-- main problem with the settlement is that it hasn’t been properly reviewed, the crux of the issue of interest in “droit moral” being released to Google as a business deal that is (in her option) incorrectly structured, passing the publisher’s costs of administration onto the author, eliminating the market process (the right to negotiate the agreement/right to seek other publishers). [YES! EXACTLY THE POINT] Creating a CC-NA license for Google via article 10, which is against individual rights/informed consent. Class action not a properly binding mechanism for this. Does NOT believe there is any “orphan books” issue. “Attempt to do legislation through the courts,” thins the “orphan issue” an invention of the lobby of Google/online publishers, to shift costs. It all leads to putting onus/costs on authors, rather than corps hiring $25/hour paralegals to do research (the “registry admin fee”. Also eliminates market competition . As a purely financial matter, this is a very bad idea. She believes it’s an illegal settlement and will be thrown out, eventually.
“Forced” into arbitration under registry, rewriting principles of common law that were favorable to authors into ones favorable to publishers. “Search rights” not expressly granted in any contract, despite publishers licensing the rights. Random House explicitly exempts those rights, forex.
Google is exonerated from all acts of hacking/destruction after a relatively small sum (vis recent Chinese hacking as example of how vulnerable they are). “Exercise in cost-shifting” Highly recs that people opt out -- better off without the agreement, force them to come back and try again with something better structured. “opt-out is abusive“
Paul then comes in and disputes. Claims the rights clearance would “swamp” the agreement if done otherwise. (seemed to be arguing Google’s interests, not ours, there. Still does not approach who will be policing Google) Doesn’t address how Google’s settlement would prevent piracy, which he claims it does (to create/serve new markets) Lynn comes back that settlement has cut out individual rights -- audit is subsumed by corporate secrecy etc. No evaluation of assets of database before settlement made [how the hell could they not do an asset evaluation before setting prices? Sloppy business, sloppy advocacy.] Takes away individuals discretion to dispose of their own property with preemptive sale.
She uses the term “contracts of adhesion” -- A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.
Salley Shannon -- president of ASJA
Questions she asked:
- talking about reversion, but in reality, isn’t the new default now that publishers will never allow rights to revert? [his response -- yes, but the settlement didn’t really contribute to that. I have to agree]
[point raised that author cut is after agency cut, too. That $60/book? More like $20, eventually.]
How is registry going to be determining who the owner is? If there’s a dispute, who will decide? Will registry have access to contracts? (serious violation of privacy!)
At this point, Paul gets defensive, makes comments like “your vivid imagination” and “big old scary Google.” He’s not winning style points with me, at least.
Michael Capobianco, former President of SFWA
Main problems:
Opt-out nature of the program. If you’re the rights holder you should have a say. End of story. It shouldn’t be dependent upon the rights holder showing up and announcing themselves through all the required hoops. Assumes computer access/computer familiarity//internet connectivity that’s reliable.
Asking writers to have knowledge of law/business beyond what is required/usual by field… and penalizing them for that lack of experience or knowledge, considering even lawyers aren‘t agreeing on what this settlement means, or how people will be affected.
[and once again, Paul is snide about people who disagreed with him, saying “among people who understand” the settlement, there isn’t concern. Um…. A snide rejoinder wins you no converts.]
-Conflation of “orphaned works” with OP books
-Doesn’t think publishers should get any money from OP books.
Salley points out that ASCAP a) is opt-in and b) has 2x been sued for fraud and exists under eye of court.
PAUL LEAVES BEFORE THE Q&A PERIOD -- “has a piano recital,” he says. I try to ask a question about how the panel overseeing the registry, get non-answer that boils down to “we‘ll worry about that later.” A second question from someone else is given the same sort of non-answer, and then he’s gone.
[note; if you hear a female voice pushing him on details from the audience during the recording of this? Yeah, that’s me. I am not shy of speaking up when I feel I‘m being given the run-around, no.]
Edward Hasbrouck, NWU
-Money grossly inadequate
- pass-on left in hands of publishers
- no guarantee for future use, and better deals are already available (submitting directly to Google, rather than being part of the settlement)
Opt-out process -- forfeit control of right, and bound by whatever the settlement is determined after the fact to mean. Nobody knows what the settlement actually means/will be interpreted.
Proposed settlement will affect relationships with existing print publishers, connecting them to players and terms to be determined later, rather than established & agreed-upon contracts.
Settlement requires you to assume best case scenario/honesty that you’ll get a fair share, rather than having to fight for it. He doubts that.
Prof JG’s response to that: suspects most will be consumed in fees and doled out sloooowly while navigating ambiguity and complexity of the agreement.
Reminded that DoJ said “publishers will be in control of the registry” based on the way the terms are structured.
---
General comments: opting in is an orderly way to get things offline. Opting out and you lose the ability to control it. It’s a conundrum.
In amended: you don’t have to list everything to opt-out (as per Lynn)
“safer opting out -- reserving rights at-law” Article 10 completely waive all rights vis prior rights (as per Lynn)
File objection to judge re: requirement to be on-line to be involved -- puts a hardship on authors who are not living on-line, don’t have regular e-mail or internet access, etc. Can’t reach everyone so they have the opportunity to opt-out.
---------------------------------
So what we have, folks, is a mess. Which we knew. The AG can’t say for certain how things will be administrated, how much might be paid out, or who will handle the administration. No specifics about anything, other than “it will help create new markets.“ Except those markets are already being created, outside of Google (Fictionwise, Amazon, BookView Café, etc) Opponents can’t say that opting out is better, just that opting in is abusive to your rights (but opting out loses your ability to be involved, except to sue individually.
I freely admit that my reaction to all this was deeply, deeply influenced by the tone of the AG Executive Director. I am told that he‘s a nice guy, but I found him dismissive of concerns raised, he did not answer questions put directly to him, and when asked about pending structures that would have great impact but haven’t yet been established, he threw out best case scenarios and would not address concerns. In short, he acted like an employee/shareholder of Google rather than an advocate of authors.
I am not reassured.
And I have to make my final decision -- opt in, or opt-out? -- this week.
And, if you have published anything in the past that you hold copyright to -- so do you.
I hope this was helpful...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 02:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 02:57 am (UTC)Sorry.
I'll go off and froth-at-the-mouth elsewhere . . .
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 02:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:07 am (UTC)I'm still not sure, but I'm not feeling motivated to opt out, yet, either. If you, with all your experience and knowledge, don't see a clear cut answer, well... yeah. I actually feel better rather than worse.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:12 am (UTC)I would have to opt-out though. I still believe Google should have to ask MY permission rather than assume I'm giving it unless I object.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:13 am (UTC)Other questions that came to mind...
Do any of the principals noted above own significant shares of GOOG, or for that matter AMAZ, Barnes and Noble, etc.
Is the class of all rights holders even a valid class? One thinks one could make a case that only authors represented by the AG are part of the class if it came to a court case.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:13 am (UTC)Hell, we even got money once.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:17 am (UTC)That was tried and, apparently, dismissed. There is a reason many of us are not impressed by the Authors Guild, and why Ursula LeGuin has publicly left the Guild.
This has been brought to the courts, already, and the DoJ got involved in forcing a revision to the original settlement. Many legal fingers have been in the pot.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:28 am (UTC)One thing I'm not clear on at all. If we preemptively put up our OOP work in places like SmashWords or lulu or BVC, does this make a difference? It's then technically back in print.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:34 am (UTC)You can keep them from putting up your OOP stuff just by jumping through hoops to stop them if they do, because you own copyright, I think. They don't have the right to put up OOP stuff, just public domain stuff, unless you agree to let them.
Or something.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:48 am (UTC)Whatever you do, take the option that allows you the most control of your work.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:56 am (UTC)You are free to have your own opinion, and make your own decisions, natch.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 04:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 06:00 am (UTC)If you have any questions you want me to to cover when we do the online panel tomorrow, drop me a line. Or, since you are a SFWA member, you can ask them directly.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 11:51 am (UTC)It's worrying and I have no voice.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 11:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 11:59 am (UTC)I do know that foreign nations have gotten loopholes in the second settlement that give them more protection, but I haven't been focusing on those developments, my plate overloaded already.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 01:25 pm (UTC)Laura - thanks for the overview of the event. I think you nailed it: it's a royal mess and will continue to be so.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 01:33 pm (UTC)here is my hand, let me lead you....
Date: 2010-01-21 01:55 pm (UTC)http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/enter_opt_out
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 02:09 pm (UTC)My choice so far is to stay out of it entirely, not opt in, not opt out.
My bet is, Some Very Famous Author or VFA's Estate will wait til the dust settles, and if the settlement is not thrown out of court, they will then step forward and sue the frink out of Google, and =then= the settlement will be declared illegal.
Besides, have you noticed that you have to give Google your social security number, either opting in or opting out? They're being hacked all the time. Thanks, but no thanks.
Re: here is my hand, let me lead you....
Date: 2010-01-21 02:09 pm (UTC)Re: here is my hand, let me lead you....
Date: 2010-01-21 02:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:03 pm (UTC)I'm having trouble believing that they're going to not scan new books going forward, though. It may be a case of "deal with that later, this is more urgent," but has there been any mention of the treatment of books published after January 5, 2009?
(Speaking as someone who's not yet published, but watching with interest.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-21 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 03:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 06:00 pm (UTC)That is, in fact, what's making me consider opting out. Also, I am very very bad with being told "if you don't do what we say, you're stupid and wrong and we will penalize you for being independent."
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 07:47 pm (UTC)Maybe he doesn't like seeing himself held up to the mirror.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 08:51 pm (UTC)I would wonder how much money Google is kicking in to the Author's Guild the way they seem to be in bed together, but that would be very cynical of me.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-24 12:22 pm (UTC)Plus, anyone with a good case doesn't have to get snide. That's just plain unprofessional. "You don't like this because you're an idiot" is not, in fact, a valid counter-argument. Find me someone who will deal with the facts and we'll talk.