US appeals court rules Google's book-scanning project is legal

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Given, though, that every Surpreme Court Judge is almost certainly a published author, whom do you suggest should try the case if all the judges rule themselves out?

A quorum is six. If they don't have it, the appeals court verdict in favor of Google will stand.

In practice, I can't believe a justice would recuse his or her self unless they had an in-print book published by one of the specific publishers who joined the Authors Guild. The publishers are named here:

https://www.authorsguild.org/wp-cont...lComplaint.pdf

So the question is, how many is that true of? I could have missed something, but can only find two, Penguin Random House authors Breyer and Sotomayor:

http://www.amazon.com/Active-Liberty.../dp/0307274942

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Beloved_World

As far as I can tell, the other seven could, in theory, rule on this.

Thomas is a Harper-Collins author, and they don't seem to have participated in the case. Scalia is published by Thompson Reuters and Regnery, both non-participants. Alito has nothing in print, and the out of print book he co-authored didn't go to a major. Roberts, Ginsburg, and Kagan are not published book authors.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Thanks Steve. A very reasonable and informative response. I wasn't aware of the level of advances paid to the Judges as per your links, as I would not have thought advances of this level on these types of books would be economic. Thank you for curing my ignorance in this regard. Given this level of pecuniary interest it is quite legitimate to at least raise the issue of recusal, not because of any doubts about the integrity of the Judges in question, but simply because of the principle of perceived bias which comes into play in these circumstances. Justice not only must be done, but must be seen to be done.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will refuse to hear this matter, which seems to be the likely result. In which case, of course, the law would have worked in this instance, at least in both your opinion and my own.

Actually many of the books written by authors who are Supreme Court Justices are of general interest. I've read several and they are quite interesting and not very technical. Both Thomas and Sotomayor have very compelling life stories, so I can see where their books deals would be worth a lot.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Apache

Just ask Lizzie Borden's Father and Step Mother.
Apache

Karma Worthy!

[Fat Abe]

Do full-time writers really make as little as $17,500, according to:

https://www.authorsguild.org/wp-cont...al-updated.pdf

This is shocking but Google cannot be attributed as the cause of the decline in earnings. Blame the libraries, Xerox machines, and ebook lending institutions. Providing a tiny snapshot of a book does not encourage piracy. The greater danger to authors are bookstores that allow you to browse as much of a book as you're able to read in an hour. After that, the prospective buyer makes an economic decision, and I would say that most readers decline to purchase the majority of books that they open. Why doesn't the Author's Guild push for pamphlets of books, keeping the big prize sealed?

[crossi]

A full time writer who doesn't write books that a LOT of people want to buy shouldn't be shocked even if they made nothing. Just because you write something doesn't mean you are entitled to be able to make a living from it. Now if a lot of people bought the books and because of bad contract terms the publisher made a lot of money but you only got a pittance, now that would be shocking. I mean shocking that your agent let you sign something with such bad terms. Fire the agent.

Blaming bookstores and libraries for allowing potential customers to read your books is just wrongheaded. I've found a lot of new favorite authors whose books became autobuys by reading my first book by that author in a library or bookstore. I browse the stores a lot picking up things that look interesting and sometimes if the author is good I get hooked and pulled into the book. After reading that book I'm likely to search out other titles by that author and often buy a bunch all at once to take home. Of course if the book was only so-so probably not, so that book was a lost sale. Solution: write better books.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by crossi

A full time writer who doesn't write books that a LOT of people want to buy shouldn't be shocked even if they made nothing. Just because you write something doesn't mean you are entitled to be able to make a living from it. Now if a lot of people bought the books and because of bad contract terms the publisher made a lot of money but you only got a pittance, now that would be shocking. I mean shocking that your agent let you sign something with such bad terms. Fire the agent.

Blaming bookstores and libraries for allowing potential customers to read your books is just wrongheaded. I've found a lot of new favorite authors whose books became autobuys by reading my first book by that author in a library or bookstore. I browse the stores a lot picking up things that look interesting and sometimes if the author is good I get hooked and pulled into the book. After reading that book I'm likely to search out other titles by that author and often buy a bunch all at once to take home. Of course if the book was only so-so probably not, so that book was a lost sale. Solution: write better books.

This is what annoys me about many so-called literary authors making a living off government grants. What normally happens is a quite incestuous group is appointed to administer government art funds which they distribute within that like-minded group. Some of the supported authors may be successful, but it seems that most of them suffer from the problem that no one wants to read their work. This is not, of course, limited only to literature.

IMHO no author is entitled to a living. If you want to write, you should not expect to make a living at it unless you are not only writing what enough people want to read but are also able to actually attract those readers. The vast majority of authors who publish, either themselves or through a traditional publisher, are never going to make a living at it. Many of these don't mind and are happy just to write. Some will give up. But no one is entitled to expect to be able to do it full time at the expense of the taxpayer. You are not owed a living. You should only get my money if I read your Book. I don't want to subsidise the writing of pretentious rubbish which no one wants to read.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Do full-time writers really make as little as $17,500, according to:

https://www.authorsguild.org/wp-cont...al-updated.pdf

This is shocking but Google cannot be attributed as the cause of the decline in earnings.

I don't see it as "shocking" at all. It shows that the people in question aren't writing the type of books that people want to buy. If you want to be a full-time writer, you'd be much better advised to go into journalism, advertising copy-writing, TV script-writing, or any one of a dozen other branches of the profession, any one of which is likely to pay better than writing fiction.

[kennyc]

You could ask the question about 'full time' musicians or artists and get similar results.
Heck ever 'full time' athletes or ballerinas or ....

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You could ask the question about 'full time' musicians or artists and get similar results.
Heck ever 'full time' athletes or ballerinas or ....

Yep, there is a reason the term "starving artist" came about. I had a girl friend who was an aspiring actress. Those acting jobs were few and barely paid.