An online campaign by writers and copyright owners to object to the settlement; 102 signatories so far.
“102 signatories so far”— That’s not too bad considering it was just posted yesterday! (Friday, January 1st, 2010 at 12:19 pm)
Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me
CBC Radio has broadcast two excellent interviews with Canadian author Katherine Gordon:
As It Happens program for Friday, January 8: click on Part 3; it is at the start, about 10 minutes;
and On the Coast: scroll down to Interviews, Thursday - 7 minutes; or here is a direct link to the sound file.
Our anti-settlement petition here in Canada now has more than 400 signatures of Canadian writers - and it’s still growing! -Kim Goldberg, Nananimo, BC
Kim Goldberg
Signatures are not enough, Disgruntled authors have to hire US attorneys and file written objections, with the NY Federal Court, and do this soon.
You are right, Jerome. And that is exactly what we are doing. We now have David Fewer of the Samuelson-Glushko Law Clinic at the University of Ottawa working for us on this. David is the Director of S-G’s Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic at U Ottawa. David is in contact with the Samuelson-Glushko Clinic of Intellectual and Property Law at Fordham University School of Law in New York. In addition to the petition, we are also gathering up Canadian authors who have NOT opted out, and who will let their name stand on a Letter of Objection for submission to the court.
I made it clear in my opt out that I considered the document a “forced document” in that if I did not take this opportunity to opt out than Google may be granted rights to my work that are normally reserved for legitimate copyright holders. Do you think Kim that my name may be added to the Letter of Objection? Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia. The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me
An update from “CWAG” — Canadian Writers Against the Google settlement— can be found here: Bolt’s update on anti-GBS Filing. Nothing new, but it shows people are starting to ask, WHEN? Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia— The University of Wisconsin, Google & Me
Today is Canada Day. I believe my copyrights to my creations are a human right, and an extension of myself. When my copyrights were violated by foreign interests I looked to the Canadian Government for support— just as a Canadian in a foreign land would turn to the Canadian Embassy for help. Instead of being supportive in the defense of my rights, the Government of Canada dismissed me. I am disappointed in my country, this Canada Day.
Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia— The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me
Bill C-32 - Canada’s copyright reform bill is due to be debated in the Canadian House of Commons on November 2 for its second reading. Yesterday Michael Geist posted Copyright the Canadian Way to his blog. I, myself, believe the reform is pointless if Canada is unwilling to defend our (copy)rights in the international community, and our neighbour and largest trading partner does not respect our (copy)rights.
Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia— The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me
Douglas Fevens: I believe my copyrights to my creations are a human right, and an extension of myself.
As I’ve stated elsewhere here, I find your fervent beliefs about copyright fascinating, but the reality is that the legal rights granted to creators by copyright vary from nation to nation in all different sorts of ways.
How exactly can you be sure, in such a situation, about the exact boundaries of the “moral right” you are so certain you have? How do you justify being so certain that this “moral right” doesn’t inherently include various limitations, such as, for example, compulsory licensing (in which case your indignation over Google’s actions is totally irrational)?
I am not a lawyer, but I am trying to defend my copyrights to the best of my ability. If others see this as “irrational” or “silly”, so be it. FYI: (1) a comment and (2) Academic Integrity
Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia— The Universty of Wisconsin, Google, & Me
Douglas Fevens:
I am not a lawyer, but I am trying to defend my copyrights to the best of my ability. If others see this as “irrational” or “silly”, so be it.You really aren’t following my line of reasoning whatsoever. I don’t find it either irrational or silly that you should want to defend your copyright. What I find peculiar is that you don’t even define for yourself what “your copyright” exactly is (or at least, if you do have such a personal definition, you haven’t been willing to share this information with the rest of us here —- instead you talk about it being a “human right” and about how dear your creation is to your heart —- this is admirable, but doesn’t let us continue the discussion very easily).
FYI: (1) a commentIt’s fairly clear that you aren’t a lawyer, because to the best of my knowledge, any facts which you publish in a book are not covered by copyright and also cease to be private information. This means that it would be perfectly legal (not that I would do it, of course, now that I know that this would cause you distress) for me to obtain a copy of your book and create a website with all of the personal information of your relatives in it (as long as I didn’t reuse the exact wording of the text of your book). I therefore wonder why you would demand an apology from a faceless corporation for doing something which, actually, wasn’t at all illegal in the first place —- assuming that you want the apology for the exposure of personal information and not for the conversion and/or copying of your book (and it is presumably exactly for the exposure you want the apology, since it would seem to be strange to me for your relatives to be offended by the copying of a text which they didn’t write themselves and in which they have no economic interest).The people named in my book contributed to it on the understanding that the electronic database was to be destroyed and it was. For several months their private information was fully searchable on the internet. I expect an apology, which I can pass along to my relitives.
Ron
The problems center upon the current reality that copyright has become ( often deliberately) very confused , with Licensing.
Interestingly conflating moral rights with economic rights has been a long standing tactic of the collection collectives. In the case we were involved with the conception of an inalienable moral right was applied to an individual economic right resulting in the collective openly arguing for the nonsense of an individual right that was for the individual , compulsory- a right to which you canot say no.
It is worth remembering that the GBS started as a dispute over fair use and the extent of authors rights to say no to the use of their books as a method of generating audiences that have (for Google ) economic value.
john walker:
If your post was in reply to my reply to Douglas Fevens, I fail to see the connection, since my post to him concerned details of his particular grievance against Google, which in the end seems to be only peripherally concerned with copyright.
Your post actually seems to be more of a continuation of our discussion at GBS: Open Book Alliance Writes to Congress. So be it, I won’t be a thread-location-pedant, and will continue the discussion here.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen anyone arguing that collective licensing is a moral right in and of itself, and I’d be fascinated if you would post an example.
As for my particular stand on Google Books, I must say I am quite ambivalent. On one hand, legalizing collective licensing with opt-out seems to be the only real possibility nowadays for solving the ever-increasing problem of orphaned works not entering the public domain. On the other hand, I’m very disappointed about the job Google is doing of giving the public the access I would like it to have to those orphaned (and even public domain) works, and I really, really don’t see why Google should have a virtual monopoly over this, even if, at this juncture, it’s the only player willing to come up with the enormous sums of money which are necessary (oh, and it really grates on my nerves that this devil’s compromise to save the public domain ends up funding the collection agencies).
Small-time author blasts Google-UW digital book project — I have posted this link to the Laboratorium before. Here is my letter to the editor referenced in the article:
Douglas Fevens: UW sets bad example on copyright rules
Douglas Fevens — 6/16/2009 5:21 am
Dear Editor: I wrote a book in 2004. It was not created to become a bestseller; only 200 were printed. But it was my book, about my family. I say “was” because the University of Wisconsin, in a commercial venture with Google Inc., has digitized it and now holds virtual copies, which I consider digital printing plates, and an infringement of my copyright.
As I registered my copyright with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office-Copyrights in 2004, the University of Wisconsin, with a few clicks of the mouse, could have found the information to contact me for my permission. It chose not to.
I feel that copyright infringement is akin to plagiarism, and universities have strict rules about plagiarism. Most universities of the world teach their students about copyright infringement.
In an e-mail from the University of Wisconsin to me, it states: “Although we believe our work with Google and the HathiTrust is appropriate, we acknowledge your concerns. As such, we believe that the actions taken resolve this matter.”
I am sure the American agents who performed waterboarding torture techniques on human beings thought their work “appropriate,” but it was torture and it was wrong. UW’s digitization of my work, “Fevens: A family history,” in partnership with Google Inc., without my consent was copyright infringement and it was wrong.
I feel that the university is setting a poor example for its students, and it owes me an apology for creating digital printing plates of my work. It is a bully and is teaching that might is right!
Douglas Fevens
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Douglas Fevens:
Would you have been equally offended if I had bought your book and scanned it into “digital printing plates” for my own use?
Would you have been equally offended if I had bought your book and put up the facts it contains concerning your family on a publicly searchable website?
Ron
I did not make my self clear I apologize. However the threads do intertwine. To my mind ‘orphan books’ are a lame excuse for overturning basic common law conceptions of individual economic property rights as a “right of control of usage “. There are lots of alturnative book scanning projects going on in libraries that are not so nonchalant about consent.
There are many alternative business models for creatives to pursue ; Why should the legal system enforce a virtual monopoly right of controll to a quasi-compulsory collectivization model? Opt-out is not that different to the scams where ‘offers to purchase’ are tricked up as ‘invoices’ .
Conflating individual moral rights with individual economic rights and then conflating copyright with licensing, often ends in confusing of the rights of individuals with the rights of groups , confusing rights with duties.
Ron
Assuming that the uses you mention ;”if I had bought your book and scanned it into “digital printing plates” for my own use?”are not commercial uses they are ‘fair uses’.
The question is -is Google’s use of these books a fair use or not. It is not an argument about a “mere right to remuneration” .
ron
Regarding
“I’ve never seen anyone arguing that collective licensing is a moral right in and of itself, and I’d be fascinated if you would post an example.”
The lobbyists for a compulsory monopoly license artist resale right claimed that the resale right was an “inalienable” right and thus it was an “automatic” collection right; a ‘right’ with no need for individual consent to be given to usage.
Ron
hypothetically : if the use being made by google (or another entity ) of the books is a trespass of economic property rights. Would an license to trespass be an appropriate response ?
john walker:
To my mind ‘orphan books’ are a lame excuse for overturning basic common law conceptions of individual economic property rights as a “right of control of usage”And as you understand from my post, for me the problem of orphan works, and reform of copyright is central. It makes no sense for society to protect an economic interest which doesn’t exist (i.e., orphan works) —- so what remains is to phrase the revision of the copyright laws so that the lack of protection of orphan works cannot be (easily) abused.
There are lots of alturnative book scanning projects going on in libraries that are not so nonchalant about consent.Such projects would seem to be rather ineffective, since they will most probably be unnecessary for the vast majority of future works (which will almost certainly be provided in digital form from the the start), and also totally unable to digitize orphan works, so they are limited to digitizing books for which the publisher might very well have a future economic interest in doing the digitization themselves. Do these projects offer a uniform licensing deal to the creators, or do they have the enormous headache of bookkeeping of individually negotiated licensing terms for each work?
Assuming that the uses you mention … are not commercial uses they are “fair uses”What is the effective difference, then, between a “fair use” and a “compulsory license for uses of content which are fair use”? I don’t really see any difference there, except that most compulsory licensing laws adequately define the uses for which licensing is compulsory, and fair use is not at all well-defined by copyright law and has to be decided in the courts on a case-by-case basis.
The lobbyists for a compulsory monopoly license artist resale right….I was hoping for a link to the original argument and not a third-person rehash by you, sorry.
“I was hoping for a link to the original argument and not a third-person rehash by you, sorry.”
If you google- Australian senate- Environment , Water ,Heritage and the Arts committee hearings, Feb 6-7, 2009, Hansard (and the 20 odd pre-hearing Submissions)- You can read the collectives for the benefit of artists demanding that artists such as my self who did not want to collect the royalty, should be forced to pay contributions to the costs of their collective monopoly scheme. And demanding a compulsory monopoly; as an inalienable right of ‘artists’. There were also plenty of parliamentary committees/hearings/reports in 2003-2004 , 2006 and 2007. The total number of submissions over the 6 years were many phone books thick.
It took us seven years of fighting to stop them- do not feel like going over it all in detail again, Sorry .
What is the effective difference, then, between a “fair use” and a “compulsory license for uses of content which are fair use”?
You do not pay for fair use. “Compulsory license ” is a financial transaction it has nothing to do with fair use. It is the mandated transfer of the property right (of control of usage) to a third entity,the sole justification for such a draconian step is clear community benefit ,usually that of making materials for education purposes more readily available. I suggest you reread the words of Shane Simpson that I posted earlier.
From a community perspective Compulsory licenses have a significant drawback; Compulsory licenses are inevitably redistributive ,they are counter to the purpose of copyright. Compulsory licenses are an anti-innovation measure. Redistribution inevitably rewards the typical (and established), successful innovation is very untypical .
That compulsory collective licenses are an anti-innovation measure is born out by the actual ‘look’ of the managements ; 60+, been there for decades ,going nowhere much, a grade 5 clerical officer look, Quote “we have been waiting twenty years for this, get it right”. They were born whining, and when they have whinged enough they retire.
Ron
All this talk is too sophisticated for me.
The question that was not answered years ago : Is googles use of these books to create an audience that can be sold to advertisers a fair or unfair use of these books.
Googles willingness to payup suggests that googles advice was not confidant that it is a fair use. There is not a few hundred years of case law regarding the web and digital scanning.
Before I go on to a mans farm to paint pictures I ask his permission, if permission was ever refused, I would seek else where to paint. And I always give that farmer a small picture at the end of the time as a thank you.
I do not ask permission or offer some sort of payment if the land is public domain, but I do obey the laws pertaining to acceptable uses of that public land.
Ron From A Viscopy submission 13 August, 2004 [ the bold and italics are mine]
RE: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS – RESALE ROYALTY DISCUSSION PAPER
The right is inalienable in the EU and this is best practice internationally. The primary motivation of introducing a resale royalty is to reward the efforts of visual artists in terms of the use of their works, paid in the form of a royalty like all other copyright royalties.
If resale royalty could be assigned or waived, it would join the long list of rights that copyright creators are encouraged to sign away, not only by resellers, but also by publishers, public galleries, statutory authorities and Government departments. If the Government considers the rationale behind copyright and IP, it is to provide an incentive to work for the copyright creator.
It is clear that resale royalty should only belong to the artist and whosoever the artist chooses to inherit their estate.
The one exception to this is the licence to a copyright collecting society for efficient collection management. As VISCOPY is member owned , the rights still technically belong to the creator, although they are represented by the society. This is a key difference to the management of rights for either a profit or public motive.
A commercial right that is also an inalienable human right = a ‘right’ that should be managed neither for “a profit or public motive” = a lot of rights for Viscopy.
At the time that Viscopy wrote this Submission Viscopy was a business buying and selling rights for a profit. It did not become a member agency until about a year later, it did so to deal with tax problems.
john walker: When I search for the Hansard you referred me to, I don’t find anything in that particular date range. What am I doing wrong? Here is the URL for the search I did.
Ron: This is the link for the particular committee hearing - submissions and report - on the Artists Resale Royalty: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ccwea/resaleroyalty/report.htm
There is an audio interview with David Fewer on CBC: Full Interview: David Fewer on Copyright Reform (Runs 20:20) You may remember that Mr. Fewer worked with Canadian Writers Against Google Settlement, the group that started the petition.
Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia— The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me
In regards to the comment above, the objection to the GBS-ASA that Canadian Writers Against Google Settlement filed with the court is “Canadian Authors” at the Public Index. It has 178 signatories that may be wanting to exploit their works in a manner similar to the way Google will be if the agreement is passed. Who is to say that the creator of a work would not want to place that work on a web page and charge a fee for searches of the volume? This is the type of exploitation I was talking about (here & here) in the virtual world of the internet.
Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia— The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me