Caitlín R. Kiernan (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
greygirlbeast) wrote2009-04-15 11:58 am
greygirlbeast) wrote2009-04-15 11:58 am
Entry tags:
Google Books and Twitter and other Distractions
I spent yesterday not writing, but searching for the next story to be written. So, I didn't really do much better than I did on Monday, despite the best of intentions.
---
Don't know how many of you have been following the Google Books fiasco. The Author's Guild and various publishers reached a settlement with Google back in October, under which Google is required to pay out $125 million dollars to the authors who have had (or soon will have) their copyrights infringed by the Google Books project. It's not much of a settlement. $60 per book, and if you don't claim your copyright and go along with the plan, Google will use your work, regardless. To quote Wikipedia, "In return, Google will be able to index the books and display snippets in search results, as well as up to 20% of each book in preview mode. Google will also be able to show ads on these pages and make available for sale digital versions of each book" (italics mine).
I mean, if this is the best the Author's Guild can manage, authors are well and truly screwed.
You can opt out, of course, and choose to file your own lawsuit against Google, but that's not much of an option. I haven't the money, the time, or the legal savvy. Anyway, there's now a website up that allows authors and publishers to "claim" copyright of their books that Google has already digitized. I've found sixteen of my own works listed on the website. Most are still in print. Oh, and I'm not counting those books of mine on the list that were done as "work for hire" (The Dreaming, Beowulf, etc.), as the publisher legally holds those copyrights.
I spoke with my agent on Monday regarding my options, and she replied I should accept the settlement, unless I plan to file my own lawsuit. So, Google Books has become a compulsory enterprise. I do not have the option I want, which is simply to deny Google the rights to display or sell anything I've written. And how this is possible is beyond me. This is my work, and I own the copyrights, and what Google is undertaking is blatantly illegal, and will seriously jeopardize my ability to make a living off my work, but I have no choice. In the end, I have to admit this mess baffles the hell out of me. To simply quote four lines of poetry in a novel, I have to jump through countless legal hoops. But no one is able to stop Google from forcing every living writer to be a part of this scheme. It makes me ill. It makes me want to never write another fucking word.
---
The last few months, I've had numerous people ask me why I'm not "twittering," or if I plan on "twittering," or will I please start "twittering." Back on February 3rd, I spoke my mind on Twitter, and nothing has changed. I started a blog in 2001 at the advice of my agent and other authors (most notably Neil), who thought it might help to promote my work. And it has. I began mirroring the blog at LiveJournal (originally, I was at Blogger) in April 2003, because, for whatever reason, people seemed to be flocking to LJ. I made a major concession to my lack of interest in the whole social-networking phenomenon a couple of years later by starting a MySpace account. Unlike the blog, whether or not MySpace has had any positive affect on the sales of my work is unclear. And then Facebook came along, and I reluctantly started an account, because, once again, I worried that if I didn't, I'd miss an opportunity to promote my writing. So...Blogger, LJ, MySpace, and Facebook.
And now I'm being told that I need to add Twitter to the list. After all, all the cool kids are doing it. It's the new wave of the future. But I find that I just don't care. Which is to say, no, I will not be joining the Twitter craze. I am already more "connected" than I wish to be, and I can think of nothing more insufferably dull than sending out trivial details of my life, trying to broadcast my every trivial thought (or reading the trivial acts and thoughts of others). I've already come dangerously close to doing this with the Facebook thing, and, for that matter, with the online journal. I have no more time for distraction. No more time for the latest internet fads. If anything, I'm more inclined to begin withdrawing somewhat.
I'm having one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" reactions to Twitter, and I think it's time to trust my instincts, which I too often ignore.
I do not do text. These days, I rarely even use the telephone. I will not "twitter."
---
Don't know how many of you have been following the Google Books fiasco. The Author's Guild and various publishers reached a settlement with Google back in October, under which Google is required to pay out $125 million dollars to the authors who have had (or soon will have) their copyrights infringed by the Google Books project. It's not much of a settlement. $60 per book, and if you don't claim your copyright and go along with the plan, Google will use your work, regardless. To quote Wikipedia, "In return, Google will be able to index the books and display snippets in search results, as well as up to 20% of each book in preview mode. Google will also be able to show ads on these pages and make available for sale digital versions of each book" (italics mine).
I mean, if this is the best the Author's Guild can manage, authors are well and truly screwed.
You can opt out, of course, and choose to file your own lawsuit against Google, but that's not much of an option. I haven't the money, the time, or the legal savvy. Anyway, there's now a website up that allows authors and publishers to "claim" copyright of their books that Google has already digitized. I've found sixteen of my own works listed on the website. Most are still in print. Oh, and I'm not counting those books of mine on the list that were done as "work for hire" (The Dreaming, Beowulf, etc.), as the publisher legally holds those copyrights.
I spoke with my agent on Monday regarding my options, and she replied I should accept the settlement, unless I plan to file my own lawsuit. So, Google Books has become a compulsory enterprise. I do not have the option I want, which is simply to deny Google the rights to display or sell anything I've written. And how this is possible is beyond me. This is my work, and I own the copyrights, and what Google is undertaking is blatantly illegal, and will seriously jeopardize my ability to make a living off my work, but I have no choice. In the end, I have to admit this mess baffles the hell out of me. To simply quote four lines of poetry in a novel, I have to jump through countless legal hoops. But no one is able to stop Google from forcing every living writer to be a part of this scheme. It makes me ill. It makes me want to never write another fucking word.
---
The last few months, I've had numerous people ask me why I'm not "twittering," or if I plan on "twittering," or will I please start "twittering." Back on February 3rd, I spoke my mind on Twitter, and nothing has changed. I started a blog in 2001 at the advice of my agent and other authors (most notably Neil), who thought it might help to promote my work. And it has. I began mirroring the blog at LiveJournal (originally, I was at Blogger) in April 2003, because, for whatever reason, people seemed to be flocking to LJ. I made a major concession to my lack of interest in the whole social-networking phenomenon a couple of years later by starting a MySpace account. Unlike the blog, whether or not MySpace has had any positive affect on the sales of my work is unclear. And then Facebook came along, and I reluctantly started an account, because, once again, I worried that if I didn't, I'd miss an opportunity to promote my writing. So...Blogger, LJ, MySpace, and Facebook.
And now I'm being told that I need to add Twitter to the list. After all, all the cool kids are doing it. It's the new wave of the future. But I find that I just don't care. Which is to say, no, I will not be joining the Twitter craze. I am already more "connected" than I wish to be, and I can think of nothing more insufferably dull than sending out trivial details of my life, trying to broadcast my every trivial thought (or reading the trivial acts and thoughts of others). I've already come dangerously close to doing this with the Facebook thing, and, for that matter, with the online journal. I have no more time for distraction. No more time for the latest internet fads. If anything, I'm more inclined to begin withdrawing somewhat.
I'm having one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" reactions to Twitter, and I think it's time to trust my instincts, which I too often ignore.
I do not do text. These days, I rarely even use the telephone. I will not "twitter."
no subject
As to Google Books... I Am Not a Lawyer, but the Author's Guild is not the representative of all authors. I will watch with great interest the fracas that will inevitably ensue when one or more high-profile authors sue (1) Google for infringing copyright and (2) the Author's Guild for negotiating on their behalf without permission.
no subject
As to Google Books... I Am Not a Lawyer, but the Author's Guild is not the representative of all authors. I will watch with great interest the fracas that will inevitably ensue when one or more high-profile authors sue (1) Google for infringing copyright and (2) the Author's Guild for negotiating on their behalf without permission.
One can always hope...
no subject
no subject
No, I am unfamiliar with either "twaiku" or "keitai shosetsu." Both make me shudder the same way, though. Gods...
no subject
no subject
Same here.
no subject
Can you share the URL, please?
no subject
Try this:
http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/home
I'm thinking of talking to both Harlan and Neil today, to get their take on the situation. I find it hard to believe Harlan finds this acceptable (and most everything he's ever written is included).
no subject
no subject
I'm fine with a preview of the work. That in my mind makes some modicum of sense. Giving people a taste of the author's voice isn't entirely a bad idea. Like most concepts it depends upon how it is used....and that is where this process breaks down. There is no way Google should be able to profit off of an author's work without consent. Good luck to you on this battle. May you continue to rock out sales!
Oh and Twitter? It completely blows. I've seen some interesting uses for the technology but for everyday usage it's horrible. I have a few friends on LJ that constantly update about every single detail of the day. This might in fact push the horrible celebrity virus in America completely beyond any sense of reason. Assuming we aren't at that point already.
Good for you
no subject
As for Twitter. I really don't see the point in trying to decipher what someone has to say in 140 words (keystrokes?) or less. I really dislike it.
no subject
no subject
You can opt out, of course, and choose to file your own lawsuit against Google, but that's not much of an option.
And there have been no lawsuits en masse? Nothing high-profile? Because this is deranged. I cannot understand what the Authors Guild is thinking.
I do not do text. These days, I rarely even use the telephone. I will not "twitter."
V'imru amein.
no subject
Scientists warn of Twitter dangers - http://bit.ly/15abm
That being said, Twitter is the one and only social networking that I actually enjoy. The rest are just work.
re: googlegate - I opted in, but I'm not thrilled about it.
Twittering, etc...
As stupid as my classmates are about Twilight, none of them twitter, and I haven't heard a single twitter comment from any of them since I heard about this blasted thing on Neil's blog. He seems happy enough about it, and I can honestly say it's his one piece of "writing" that I won't be reading...
no subject
Twitter seems to me too much like "friends lite". It gives the illusion of staying in touch and being involved, with no real pay off. I am sure that not everyone I know needs to know if I'm doing my laundry or if
Now, if we could get rid of all the reality shows that involve rich housewives, or children beauty pageant contestants, or rich child housewives, then I'd be a happier guy............
no subject
Twitter, god, kill this thing!
no subject
Twitter, god, kill this thing!
And hang its corpse for the crows.
no subject
The Google Books thing is overly complicated (which will tend to happen when too many lawyers get together), but as best I understand it, the reason that the settlement was reached between Google and the Authors Guild (and the Association of American Publishers) is that Google stood a decent chance of having the court rule in favor of their contention that their scanning books and making pieces of them available on the web was within the bounds of fair use (see some discussion of the legal theories involved here: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/09/authors-guild-sues-google (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/09/authors-guild-sues-google)). Such a ruling would apparently have resulted in Google not needing to pay a thin dime to copyright holders, so the AG and AAP decided it was better to get some money and avoid a legal precedent rather than roll the dice on having the judge decide.
I, personally, still think the part where authors who aren't members of the AG somehow still get sucked into the settlement is ridiculous, but since they are, you might be best served by taking your agent's advice (especially since she is an agent with such a fine reputation). Even if you don't opt out of the settlement, you can still, as I understand it, exclude your books from being displayed by Google (see the FAQ answer here: http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en#q26 (http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en#q26)), so you may want to look into that option.
no subject
Yeah, I finally figured this out, and I will be opting out and refusing to allow them to display. And talking to a lawyer who's already involved with those of us who want no part of the "settlement."
no subject
Google apparently adheres to the "shoot first ask questions later" school of business. I don't even begin to understand all the ramifications of that complex mess, but 20% of a book sounds like a fairly big chunk. It seems that requiring authors or publishers to jump through a second hoop of opting out is an unfair burden. After all, you've already had the hassle of doing the copyright paperwork once. The next logical step is that someone wanting to use a fair amount of it - and what's with the digitizing the whole thing? WTF? - would be to *get permission*. There is an epidemic of grabbing going on.