Well, maybe. An interesting analysis here on what it means for short
works such as poems:
http://www.gillianspraggs.com/gbs/GBS_survival_aid.html#poems
If it were just poems that worried me (yes, the principle of copyright
comprises my whole income - I do not have a job - so I have that other
concern) I would still be markedly uncomfortable. Having one's poem
online unchangeably in a bad scan, for example, with no possibility of
redress. But that's me.
xA
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Douglas Barbour
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Reading this & LeGuin, one can understand her worry, & many others'; but for
> a relatively little known poet, it may be less bothersome a question. I
> mean, you, Alison, have your fantasy novels to worry about, but many of us
> have a few collections of poems, & in my case, I confess, only some hundreds
> of copies of all of the out there.
>
> I get the worry, especially about the end-run around copyright, & the
> refusal of LeGuin & others, to join, but I'm not sure it matters, finally,
> to someone like me, one way or the other....
>
> Doug
> On 22-Jan-10, at 10:05 PM, Alison Croggon wrote:
>
>> ...Still not sure whether to opt in or not. Either option strikes me
>> as unsatisfactory.
>>
>> From the US authors' petition:
>>
>> "The “opt-out” clause in the Settlement is most disturbing:
>>
>> First, it seems unfair that, by the terms of the class-action
>> settlement, authors can officially present objections to the Court
>> only by being “opted in” to the settlement and thereby subjecting
>> themselves to its terms.
>>
>> Second, while the “opt-out” clause appears to offer authors an easy
>> way to defend their copyright, in fact it disguises an assault on
>> authors’ rights. Google, like any other publisher or entity, should be
>> required to obtain permission from the owner to purchase or use
>> copyrighted material, item by item.
>>
>> There is no justification for reversing that rule by forcing copyright
>> owners to defend their right against every careless or predatory use
>> of the material, thus rendering copyright essentially meaningless.
>>
>> The United States Department of Justice agrees, having declared that
>> Google should negotiate individually with copyright holders. The
>> Director of the United States Copyright Office calls the Settlement
>> “an end-run around copyright law.”
>>
>> 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"
>>
>> If you don't have a problem with big corporations making money out of
>> your work without your having any control over what they do, I guess
>> what Google is doing isn't a problem. Otherwise, the implication are
>> worrying.
>>
>> xA
>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
> Latest books:
> Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
> Wednesdays'
> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
>
> Swept snow, Li Po,
> by dawn's 40-watt moon
> to the road that hies to office
> away from home.
>
> Lorine Niedecker
>
--
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
|