Konrath challenges the Authors Guild

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by crossi

They claim to be a guild representing the interests of authors right there in their name "Authors Guild". They solicit memberships from authors in order to get membership dues from them. But in fact they represent the interests almost entirely of the big publishing houses, NOT in any way the authors. They are not blind, helping the interests of authors is not their main goal. At least not at the expense of the BPHs that they truely represent.

Well now you're mocking them.

Good job!

Or, you inconsiderate meany!

Depends on which of us assesses it.

[fjtorres]

Mockery has a long history in debate and politics.
But for those with short memories or tunnel vision there's still this guy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report

Of course, for some mockery is only acceptable when the Jester agrees with you.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Of course, for some mockery is only acceptable when the Jester agrees with you.

"...and while the King was looking down, the jester stole his thorny crown..."



Shari

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by shalym

"...and while the King was looking down, the jester stole his thorny crown..."

Jesters are prone to the unpredictable. Makes job security an issue...

(Great song. The rest of the album's pretty good, too.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Mockery has a long history in debate and politics.
But for those with short memories or tunnel vision there's still this guy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report

Of course, for some mockery is only acceptable when the Jester agrees with you.

2005 is hardly long history.

The use of rhetoric/mockery rather than arguing facts actually goes back much further than that. It was the primary method of arguing in ancient Roman times and certainly goes back to the ancient Greeks. On the other hand, simply bashing someone over the head for disagreeing with you goes back even further. I would imagine that the long, long history of bashing people over the head doesn't mean that it should be considered a good method of settling arguments.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Well now you're mocking them.

Good job!

Or, you inconsiderate meany!

Depends on which of us assesses it.

I would say more along the lines of misrepresents them rather than mock. The Author's Guild is simply a professional society for writers. Quite a few writers feel very strongly about copyright. From that stand point, the Author's Guild legitimately represents those writers view point with regards to Google. I might disagree with their view, but I understand why they feel the way that they do. I certainly don't simply dismiss the view point out of hand, or mock it simply because it's not what I believe.

[eschwartz]

Why do you keep on claiming that anyone is "mock[ing] it simply because it's not what I believe"?

The only person who is mocking what they don't believe, purely on the grounds that it isn't what they believe, and failing to provide any explanation, is you.


Which, given the discussion ("mockery"), is pretty ironic.

But you never fail to disappoint...

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Why do you keep on claiming that anyone is "mock[ing] it simply because it's not what I believe"?

The only person who is mocking what they don't believe, purely on the grounds that it isn't what they believe, and failing to provide any explanation, is you.


Which, given the discussion ("mockery"), is pretty ironic.

But you never fail to disappoint...

Are you really so dead set on trying to win an online discussion that you have to make such absurd accusations? Rather obviously, I haven't mocked anyone. I find the practice both lazy and distasteful.

Seriously, why do you feel like you have to personally attack people who disagrees with you? One of the truly distressing trends in online debate is an increasing inability to tolerate other points of view. There are many people here whom I disagree with, yet I feel no particular need to try to discredit those people.

[DiapDealer]

A little less meta-arguing please. Question (or support) Konrath's or the AG's ideas or methodologies all you like, but this arguing about how we (meaning individual MR members) argue never turns out well.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

A little less meta-arguing please. Question (or support) Konrath's or the AG's ideas or methodologies all you like, but this arguing about how we (meaning individual MR members) argue never turns out well.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

A little less meta-arguing please. Question (or support) Konrath's or the AG's ideas or methodologies all you like, but this arguing about how we (meaning individual MR members) argue never turns out well.

Some people's positions are cast in carbonite and are not open to debate.
I've found that not every comment needs a direct reply.
Or, as others point out:

[fjtorres]

More interesting to me--something Konrath only alluded to indirectly--is the AG's kneejerk opposition to Fair Use in all its forms, which is at the root of the Google books fight.

Fair Use is, of course, a big sticking point with the multinational-controlled BPHs, mostly because wide-ranging fair use is primarily a US right and their world view doesn't fit with that.

Plenty more legal fights to come over fair use online, with Google and others.

A lot of it stemming from the different roots of copyright across the two sides of the pond:

I recently ran into a comment pointing out, correctly, that in the US copyright is granted by the Contitution to serve the public interest whereas european (and particularly french) laws set up copyright to protect the rights holder. Much like debates over antitrust, which in the US is used to protect consumers and elsewhere it is used to protect competitors, the differences in viewpoints between the multinational execs and the local legal framework is leading to a lot of friction.

Friction that will continue indefinitely so long as the old world multinationals fail to understand what it takes to operate successfully and legally in the new world of digital publishing.

[eschwartz]

Is that not a sticking point for the U.S.-controlled BPH as well?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Is that not a sticking point for the U.S.-controlled BPH as well?

Their CEO talks the party line for sure, but S&S has shown a few signs of independence from the consortium from time to time (print-only deals, for example) only to retreat under pressure so it's not clear what their natural positions might be. They are the smallest and least profitable of the BPHs, after all, so they can't afford retaliation.
(Apparently, CBS mostly hangs on to it for the political connections it offers. )
They do have relatively liberal library ebook policies:
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2014/06...c-libraries/#_

Historically, Penguin, Hachette, and MacMillan have been the most vocal ringleaders of the gang and in the pre-merger days RH was a comparative "moderate", as witnessed by their skillful avoidance of the conspiracy.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

More interesting to me--something Konrath only alluded to indirectly--is the AG's kneejerk opposition to Fair Use in all its forms, which is at the root of the Google books fight.

Fair Use is, of course, a big sticking point with the multinational-controlled BPHs, mostly because wide-ranging fair use is primarily a US right and their world view doesn't fit with that.

Plenty more legal fights to come over fair use online, with Google and others.

A lot of it stemming from the different roots of copyright across the two sides of the pond:

I recently ran into a comment pointing out, correctly, that in the US copyright is granted by the Contitution to serve the public interest whereas european (and particularly french) laws set up copyright to protect the rights holder. Much like debates over antitrust, which in the US is used to protect consumers and elsewhere it is used to protect competitors, the differences in viewpoints between the multinational execs and the local legal framework is leading to a lot of friction.

Friction that will continue indefinitely so long as the old world multinationals fail to understand what it takes to operate successfully and legally in the new world of digital publishing.

Interesting point, and quite valid, IMPO. The question would be does the US signing the copyright treaty change how the US legal system views copyrights, i.e. does the Berne Convention override how the US treats fair use? While I might think that what Google is doing is well worth doing, and ought to be allowed (the idea of having all books digitized and available for purchase greatly appeals to me (and yes, I know that Google Books doesn't make all books available for purchase), whither or not it falls under fair use is very much new ground.