Sic transit . . .
"Publicity is like eating peanuts. Once you start
you can't stop."
[log in to unmask]
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Well, maybe. An interesting analysis here on what it means for short
> works such as 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.
> 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
> > 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
> > have a few collections of poems, & in my case, I confess, only some
> > 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,
> > 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/ <http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edbarbour/>
> > Latest books:
> > Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> > http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
> > Wednesdays'
> > 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