tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888403915883527494.post1773006339745856804..comments2023-06-04T10:34:35.636-04:00Comments on The eBook Test: Reject The Google Book Search Settlement!Mike Canehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12396654716615965650noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888403915883527494.post-63963053635652609442009-08-12T12:51:57.447-04:002009-08-12T12:51:57.447-04:00>>>I suppose I'm not certain whether ...>>>I suppose I'm not certain whether you are against the idea of saving abandoned works, if you have a problem with the party saving them, or whether you are concerned about specific details of the deal.<br /><br />Concentration of the world's knowledge into one corporation's hands can not end well.<br /><br />>>>Do you think the government should stay out of the rights of copyright holders? (A situation which is ridiculous on its face.)<br /><br />Uh, Copyright is a government function. Just ask Disney and Mickey Mouse. And Sonny Bono.<br /><br />>>>Let's put it another way. You are in charge of copyright law in this country. How do you handle the situation of out-of-print works?<br /><br />What do you mean by OOP? Public domain is one thing, but unless a writer and all of his/her heirs have dropped dead, there is no such thing as an "Orphan Work." Given the poor job print publishers do -- for example, few have had ongoing inventories of their works -- I don't think any of them would expend the effort/money required to "de-orphan" so-called "orphan works."<br /><br />Given that, let government step in and void all publishing contracts prior to, for example, 1980. Strip the publishers for their poor stewardship and let it be firmly established *first* that books belong to their *writers*, not to publishers and not to Google or to the AG. That's a good starting point.<br /><br />And the one question *you* have to answer: What the hell is the RUSH to get this Google thing going? WHO says it has to be done NOW NOW NOW?Mike Canehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12396654716615965650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888403915883527494.post-64379737466387935752009-08-11T16:41:41.809-04:002009-08-11T16:41:41.809-04:00(As for the quality of your examples, I am attempt...(As for the quality of your examples, I am attempting to help you build better arguments in the future. If you don't understand that many people see copyright for its original intent, to enhance public works, then your opinions won't gain much weight. I believe that if a work of art is going to generate money then most of the money should go to the artists that contributed to the popularity of the work (as opposed to whomever is currently in charge at the original publishing company). Your examples seem to completely miss these key points, though.)<br /><br />I agree that the Author's Guild should have no right to negotiate on behalf of others. That doesn't mean they are incorrect.<br /><br />Nothing I have read, other than the William Morris article, indicates that it is one-time payment or non-negotiable. The bigger question is whether works should be allowed to be lost to time? I'm glad that someone will be empowered to preserve unavailable works of art for the public, and even happier that money earned, from both direct sales and advertising, will be shared with the original artist.<br /><br />I suppose I'm not certain whether you are against the idea of saving abandoned works, if you have a problem with the party saving them, or whether you are concerned about specific details of the deal. Do you think the government should stay out of the rights of copyright holders? (A situation which is ridiculous on its face.)<br /><br />Let's put it another way. You are in charge of copyright law in this country. How do you handle the situation of out-of-print works?Logan Kennellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888403915883527494.post-88244069464606205832009-08-11T10:44:40.417-04:002009-08-11T10:44:40.417-04:00Your pro-AG pimping would have had at least a wee ...Your pro-AG pimping would have had at least a wee bit of cred as a statement in itself had you not chosen anonymity.<br /><br />The AG are a bunch of dinosaurs who by sheer luck have been granted the power to negotiate on behalf of others they would never permit into their exclusive club.<br /><br />The AG must be slapped down and the GBS Settlement killed, period.<br /><br />And based on your closing paragraph, you should stop listening to talk radio. It seems you are untutored in this thing called Real Life.Mike Canehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12396654716615965650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888403915883527494.post-18645871735790401942009-08-11T03:27:46.209-04:002009-08-11T03:27:46.209-04:00William Morris is wrong:
http://www.authorsguild....William Morris is wrong:<br /><br />http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/william-morriss-google-memo-off.html<br /><br />Somebody stepping forward to publish currently-available works is a good thing. Having Google as the only entity empowered to do so is somewhat questionable, but the goal is good.<br /><br />Also, your examples, from a broad perspective, are just awful. They indicate how copyright law, when handled poorly, can encourage stagnation in artists. Audrey Meadows never had to work again while Gerry Anderson went on to be a "producer extraordinaire", a "personal idol" of yours? I say Nay to extended copyrights and royalties then!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com