April 24th, 2009

jay-China-avatar

[links] Link salad kicks back at home

Return of the caption contest. Now with pandas! [ jlake.com | LiveJournal ]

Vintage sexist ads — Um, wow. (Thanks to tetar.)

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as bad pizza

Asteroid deflection by tetherCentauri Dreams is interesting again.

Nanotubes come into fashionTechnology Review with more fascinating materials science.

Moon and morning starAPOD photography coolness.

The Chinese Character - no simple matter — Nuances and politics behind the debate over simplified Chinese character. Language neepery with a dose of politics.

The Edge of the American West on the evils of vegetarianism — From their series on the Boxer Rebellion. Something seems to have been lost in translation from the original Klingon.

The revenge of geography — A lengthy piece on geopolitics from Foreign Policy. Well worth the read if you're interested in that sort of thing.

The Republican Party Has Lost Its Way — A brief squib contrasting the teabaggers' objections to Obama with their silence on Bush.

?otD: Why me? There must be a thousand other guys.




4/24/2009
Body movement: 30 minute stationary bike ride
This morning's weigh-in: 218.0
Currently reading: The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade by Herman Melville; The Selected Works of T.S. Spivet by Reif Larsen


Originally published at jlake.com.

jay-China-avatar

[publishing] A bit more on the banal evil of the Google books settlement

Literary agent Ashley Grayson on the Google Books settlement. Go read it.

Some of you read my prior post on this [ jlake.com | LiveJournal ], which generated a pretty interesting comment thread.

Nothing I've read since then makes me feel any better. For one thing, everybody seems to have a different conclusion about it, which tells me it isn't the least bit clear cut. That lack of consensus in and of itself is a bad thing, because it tells me this is a crappy settlement if no one involved can explain it the same way.

So far as I can determine, my rights as a copyright holder are being permanently hijacked, and the advice I'm getting boils down to "relax and enjoy it, you can't afford to sue Google anyway."

Those of you who work at Google, what the hell happened to "Don't be evil?" You've jumped the shark, guys. Wretchedly so. In fact, let me say a hearty "fuck you very much" to your entire organization.

I hate that I'm going to have to stop using Gmail, Google Maps, Google Desktop, Google search, and all the other really cool stuff Google has put into my life. But what else am I going to do? Because this thing is vile, it stinks to high heaven, and I'm being ripped off both now and in perpetuity by Google.

Thanks a million, Larry and Sergey. You guys have really made my publishing career.

Originally published at jlake.com.

jay-China-avatar

[publishing] The Google Books settlement and your legislators

Anent my post earlier today about the miserable thievery that is the Google Books settlement [ jlake.com | LiveJournal ], twilight2000 asked me via Twitter:
@jay_lake Is this the sort of thing that can be changed by new laws? Is getting our legislators involved a good idea?

My answer is, well, it's worth a shot, but probably not going to accomplish much. Here's why.

Two things move legislators. Money, and popular reaction.

The money is all on the Google side here. Overwhelmingly so. I am not implying Google has bought anybody off, merely saying that of the parties involved, only Google has the ability to swing meaningful weight through lobbying and campaign contributions.

Unfortunately, popular reaction is probably also on the Google side. What we're arguing about here isn't the indexing of the books per se. At least, I'm not. As someone said on an author's mailing list, if Google had come to us as authors and asked to do this on an opt-in basis, we'd have been falling all over ourselves to be included. What we're arguing about here is how copyright licenses are created, compensated and enforced. The Google Books settlement inverts the entire modern history of copyright, moving licensing from something controlled by the author (or other copyright holder) into something which can in effect be homesteaded by any entity large enough to not be concerned with individual lawsuits for copyright violation. Think movie studios, for example.

Most people don't know or care about that sort of thing. It's legal neepery of interest only to copyright holders and their publishers. What most people care about (if they care about this at all) is the ready access to a huge index of books, including many orphaned or out of print works. This is world-threatening to authors, agents and publishers, but it's a net benefit to most voters.

We can't swing money, and we can't swing public outrage. What are we left with? The biggest kid on the block playing bully, and all our agents and editors telling us we might as well take what we can get, because this can't be fought. And even though I support in principle what Google is trying to do here, the methods they've used, thanks to the Author's Guild and the settlement, are bullying, pure and simple, compounded by theft of copyright today and the potential for incalculable future economic damage to copyright holders.

Much as the Thor Power Tool decision had the unintended consequence of destroying publishing backlists for a generation, the Google Books Settlement has the distinct possibility of an unintended consequence of undermining or destroying author control of copyrights, and decimating the value of those copyrights.

And I don't see how our community can leverage legislators on this one, because we don't have money or popular appeal on our side. Advantage, the bully that is Google.

Do you agree with my analysis? Or am I mistaken?

Originally published at jlake.com.