Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 1 month ago
    This has nothing to do with Socialism. It's about book authors who were concerned that their copyrights were being violated. It's good that Google won the case, but it's wrong to accuse the authors of being Socialists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 1 month ago
      Their copyrights actually were not being violated. For many current books, Google Books only gives you citation information. For others, you might get a page of content, the Copyright page and TOC.

      I write often for the American Numismatic Association. Many so-called "coin collectors" have. The ANA wants to put the entire run of The Numismatist online, but they are still snagged on copyrights. Typically, it is not the authors who are the problem: they are dead. The heirs find out that Old Uncle Herb's article from 1972 or 1952 is "valuable" and they want some money for it. Do they have his coins? No, they sold those 40 or 50 years ago to get the money.

      As a protection of intellectual property Copyright law was never correctly instantiated. Since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the laws are totally out of line with reason and reality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by khalling 11 years, 1 month ago
        first, copyright laws are at once expansionary and exclusionary given the issue. I will say basing the term on the life of the author is illogical.
        On the Google front, I will say I am surprised at the lack of creativity in finding solutions to these dilemmas and wonder at Google's lack of pro-activity. I can think of all sorts of possible fixes. Google is making lots of money doing this, why not set up an escrow account or insurance to hedge against conflicts?
        Google from the start has been very bold and arrogant about infringing on intellectual property. I surmise it's basically a get out of my way attitude. Or as in John Taylor's famous ballad- "I'm a steamroller baby, I'm going to roll all over you."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 1 month ago
          I worked on Google project, actually, as a security guard. The work was being done for university libraries. They paid Google to scan their books into electronic format. That, too, was fought by the Author's Guild.

          And what about libraries? I mean if you buy a book, can you LEND it to someone else for a fee or does it "belong" to the author?... or to the publisher?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 11 years, 1 month ago
            there are issues now with electronic transfer of the "physical" book. You may re-sell the physical copy, but not "lend" for a fee. I would say that with big shops like Amazon, they have special agreements with publishers/authors to do their electronic lending library.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 1 month ago
        It doesn't matter what google offers you; they copied the books without permission. Did they pay for every book they copied?

        The worst copyright abuser, imo is Disney.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 1 month ago
      No, it's not good that Google won the case.
      Google wanted the full books in digital format in order to provide snippets to Google's *customers*, so that Google can profit... from other people's copyrighted material. And did so withOUT permission of the copyright holders.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 1 month ago
    AUTHORS do not necessarily own copyrights. The PUBLISHER often owns the copyright. Read the copyright page. The author may have the copyright and that is on the copyright page of the book. Not on that page is the ASSIGNMENT of the copyright to the publisher. That contract is not easily part of a discussion like this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 1 month ago
    In "Electronic Life" (1983) MIchael Crichton said that the medium is so inherently copyable (SELF copyable) that any intention of control is irrational. He suggested that artists get their money first up front once and move on to the next thing. Since then, I have done just that.

    There were some exceptions. DEFENSE COMPUTING took an article I wrote about Soviet Computer Technology and reprinted it because the original lacked the circle-c (C) copyright notice. That was before President Reagan signed the Berne Convention. Now the (C) is not needed: everything defaults to the creator unless stated otherwise. Anyway, they sent me a check for $100; that settled it.

    The other was the Loeb Museum at Vassar College. They employed some undergraduates to write for a presentation on ancient coinage. One of them found one of my articles online and took it for his own. Searching the topic ("origins of coinage") for my own research, I found it. I offered to write a new one for them, but instead they took down the page.

    I have a ton of stuff online. I seldom mind one way or the other. Typically, the contract says that they get First Rights and then it reverts to me. I have been paid, so I am happy to have my work available. Moreover, it increases my visibility - and separates me from the Michael Marottas who are dentists, musicians, or felons.

    Search:
    Michael Marotta aviation
    Michael Marotta computer security
    Michael Marotta numismatics
    Michael Marotta Objectivism
    Michael Marotta documentation

    See this citation, one of many in Wikipedia where two somethings I wrote are listed as sources:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_th...

    Those citations to my works are no longer available because the website went down. Would that someone had copied them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 1 month ago
    It is the Authors Guild that was suing. Having published over 300 magazine and newspaper articles (and two books), I, too, am an author, but not a member of this guild. That is my choice, but the fact remains that they only represent SOME authors. It is a guild and they want guild privileges.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo