On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:28 PM, delancey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > How much legal force does any of this have? After all: ....
>
> Sure, of course, but my impression is that a lot of these things end
> up becoming precedents of what's perceived as normal. I grant I may
> be wrong about that. And I confess to knowing very little about
> publishing or the law.
Yes, a primer on IP law would be a good thing for the group. Copyright is
not my forte, but I can do some. Steve has experience with copyright and
contracts in the publishing industry, as does Nancy, that could certainly be
helpful. I can try and find a colleague who will come to a meeting to
discuss copyright since that is the primary copyright interest in this
group. I have some basic introduction at my website. Here are direct links:
<http://hennip.com/Copyrights.html>
<http://hennip.com/Trademarks.html>
<http://hennip.com/Patents.html>
The trade secret link is broken, and I see that I have some updating to do
on the site for other reasons. The articles in the sections linked above are
basic, but they get the ideas across.
> But: imagine that libraries were not
> established as a norm, and someone tried to start one today.
This really has little to do with the original issue of whether a product
marketed specifically for its ability to read books aloud nearly as well as
a human (at least a straight reading) should be entitled to additional
royalties to content creators for audio rights. However, it does go to the
content creator's/owner's ability to control, because of copyright, certain
uses of his/her work. We should probably split it into a separate thread.
Just saying.
The
> Author's Guild would promptly denounce this as theft; the fellow who
> attempted to found the library would (let us suppose) cave in, and
> then instead have some rule like, I'll put your book in my library if
> you give me permission. Some authors would praise this, saying, why
> shouldn't I decide what happens with MY work? But the result would be
> that norms would get established that would effectively prevent the
> library institution from ever getting off the ground. This is because
> most writers would be afraid to be the sole writer saying, yes, you
> can put my book in your library. And, to offer your book to the
> library, when few else would do so, would make the author worry that
> they were being chumps (a phenomenon well studied in behavioral
> economics with such games as the public goods game). And, perhaps
> most importantly, libraries really only work when they have a big
> selection, which they might not have if the content is being
> restricted in this way. So libraries wouldn't exist in any
> significant form.
You're making some fairly huge assumptions about the behavior, beliefs,
perceptions, and opinions of "the writing community." I agree that libraries
would probably not be able to be started in this day and age, at least not
in the same form they currently enjoy. But to categorically say that most
writers would be the sole writer to be put in the library? I don't know.
Maybe most writers would welcome the opportunity to have the publicity at
the cost of losing some sales? The studies about behavioral economics - do
they take marketing budgets into account? Maybe the authors in the case of
libraries aren't the ones we need to look at at all, but the publishers?
> I fear an analogous thing is happening now; we're
> setting a social norm that (1) it's reasonable to say certain kinds of
> algorithms are theft (which, I might add, I continue to find deeply
> problematic conceptually: how bizarre to say that a function --
> literally, a mathematical function! -- can transform a legally
> purchased good into a stolen good!), and (2) content controllers seem
> more and more to get to decide every form, every iteration, if not
> every instance, that the relevant content should take.
Not exactly a stolen good. Mathematical algorithm transforming legally
purchased good into unauthorized copy? Algorithm creating derivative work -
not so far fetched. It's not too far removed from ripping CDs and DVDs but
for transforming the text into audio. I'm going to stop with the arguments I
started writing after this because I'm realizing that a lot of them have
been made by more-well-versed colleagues in settled/decided legal battles.
Some of them were related to CD/DVD ripping. The most recent somewhat
related case of which I'm aware is the case against a cable company for its
system allowing customers to delay viewing using company-controlled and
-hosted DVRs. So, rather than wasting my time and yours expounding on my
ideas, I'll see if I can come up with some of these cases. There may even be
some with closer fact patterns.
The Kindle issue is a mix of copyright and contract. Copyright gives some
pretty powerful rights to the creators/owners of works, both from the common
law and from statutory law. Derivative works can be infringing works, and if
machine-generated audio is a derivative work, bingo. While owners are
unlikely to go after individuals, they would be likely to go after the maker
of the machine/software as inducing infringement. Hence the Guild's beef
with Amazon.
I'm not going to be able to keep my promise of addressing the host of
arguments set forth last week due to time constraints. Hopefully, the case
law will provide some helpful views and save us time.
--
Dave Henn
[email protected]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
