This week, a publisher wrote to authors about the dismal prospects for newbies and traditionally published "mid-list" authors. "Mid-list" is probably a euphemism for everyone who is not a bestseller.
If commerce is about "supply and demand", the supply for digital versions of books is mind-boggling (just Google any title and author) but also, the internet and auction sites have made it possible for anyone to find a used paperback (and sometimes a "used" digital version) for less than a publisher or author can afford to sell a royalty-earning version. So, where is the demand for bricks and mortar store copies?
That publisher blames the economy, and Amazon. The publisher does not mention piracy, but piracy is ubiquitous and unstoppable.
For more, read the red-haired legal hero George Sevier of Gowling WLG on online infringement. It is a very good piece. You should look at it.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6d08db05-d778-4e49-9767-6b2950aaa351&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-10-19&utm_term=
This author mentioned his hair hue because there is a vigorous debate online (in some quarters) about whether or not novelists should buck perception and make their heroes ginger.
But... Talking of Amazon....
Douglas Preston writes about an alarming "grey market" for books, and how and why authors "get zilch".
https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/douglas-preston-gray-market-new-books/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/opinion/book-publishing-amazon-sales.html
FWIW This author is a seller on Amazon, and the Amazon fees for selling an author's stash copy of a paperback are typically $4.24 (for Amazon) for a new, unread, untouched stash paperback copy advertised for $5.70 with free postage paid for by the author. Or $4.14 for a new, never opened paperback being sold for $5.00 with free shipping.
Just for comparison/reference, I am also trying to sell a very rare, factory sealed Pocher Rolls Royce model kit for $1,085 and Amazon's fees would be $165 if I sold it, but even though no one else on Amazon has one to sell, Amazon shows the world that there are none available, and may never be available. You see, I don't pay Amazon $30 a month, so I will never get the "buy button".
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002VANZSG
I'll be taking it back to EBay within the week. (I do not consider this self-promo because no one reading an alien romance blog is likely to be a rare and outrageously expensive car kit enthusiast.)
I cannot imagine why this author identified this (below) as being one of the most interest copyright-related reading of the week. With hindsight, it seems pretty dry reading.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/29/2017-21065/compendium-of-us-copyright-office-practices
However, for authors who may not be absolutely convinced that their publisher submitted a best copy of their published work to the Library of Congress, it might be instructive bedtime reading. Or not!
Finally, some odd goings on behind the scenes at Facebook.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/12/facebook-takes-down-data-and-thousands-of-posts-obscuring-reach-of-russian-disinformation/?utm_term=.3defa353fd6d
And the legal view of the matter from Peter S. Vogel of Gardere.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=36659707-7a81-4152-8280-fbd4fcc85307&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-10-16&utm_term=
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Showing posts with label Library of Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Library of Congress. Show all posts
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Fake News? Fake History! (About Copyright)
My copyright enthusiasm has led me to take a free online course: Constitution 101 offered by Hillsdale College.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/part02/lecture
Copyright is mentioned in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) but in my opinion, copyright is also an Intellectual Property right, and the constitution upholds the right to own property.
Certain opponents of copyright are alleged to have written such statements as: "We Jeffersonians know better. Copyright is not a natural right, entitled to protection at the expense of the public good."
Source:
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/12/08/academic-copyleftists-unintentionally-bolster-constructive-termination-charge-in-firing-of-register-of-copyrights/
The above link is exceptionally interesting. It is about how some academics who are hostile to the rights of musicians and songwriters especially (but, weakening of copyright for one group of creators opens the door to weaking copyright for all creators) rationalize the allegedly so-called retaliatory constructive termination of the recent Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante.
"The public good" seems to be the excessive profitability of billion-dollar tech giants that stream or otherwise distribute music and other entertainment, and the "right" of members of the public to enjoy creative works as a perquisite that follows the subscription to- or purchase of certain apps or hardware or software.
Concerns have been expressed about the Library of Congress.
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/12/11/dr-haydens-library-of-congress-is-already-helping-big-tech-rip-off-creators-part-1-the-mass-noi-scam/
I would describe the Notice of Intent (NOI) Loophole as a variation on "orphan works". Remember the Hathi Trust project? The trick is that a big tech company that wishes to exploit ebooks or music without paying the author or songwriter simply "pretends" that they cannot locate the copyright owner or author. Therefore, under the "permissionless innovation" theory, they exploit the work and pay no one unless or until the copyright owner finds out about it on their own.
This is not the only problem. Allegedly, "...some in the anti-copyright crowd...are promoting the Library's recent deal with the Berkman Center's Digital Public Library of America to turn a digitized Library of Congress into a kind of feeder to Kickass Torrents with sovereign immunity..."
Given digitization, and the fact that it is mandatory for every copyright owner to donate 2 copies of the best of the best of their works, to the Library of Congress, that quote about feeding torrents is not so implausible. The Library of Congress appears keen to monetize and distribute what's in their collection, if one can extrapolate from what Maria Pallante was ordered to do.
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/10/25/arrogant-new-librarian-of-congress-told-register-of-copyrights-pallante-go-sell-t-shirts/
I appear to be the only skeptic about the USPTO push to discuss the Digital Marketplace. For those who wish to view videos of the entire day of events at the USPTO conference on on Friday, Dec 9th, 2016, follow this link:
https://livestream.com/uspto/DigitalMarketplace16?origin=digest&mixpanel_id=13d46f86c4b46-0398ebf1b7d5ac8-3d246e3a-1d4c00-13d46f86c4c1de&acc_id=8385860&medium=email
For those who merely want a book-related summary, there were relatively few mentions of books or ebooks during the day. Encouragingly, the focus seemed to be a genuine and positive concern for a system to ensure that "the internet" should know who owns rights to any type of intellectual property.
Speaker Trent McConaghy (of Blockchain) testified that he would like a Kayak-like (travel industry analogy, not watercraft) system presumably for finding the type of digital intellectual property that one desires at the best price.
Speaker Bill Rosenblatt (I think it was he who made this remark) bemoaned the fact that a Federal Judge (Denny Chin, as I recall) threw out the Google Book Settlement that would have established a Book Rights Registry. That Book Rights Registry would have been very helpful to authors and those who wished to exploit authors' books.
What worries me is, who would pay for any eventual registry? We know that it has been alleged that creative-works exploiters like Pandora and Spotify want music creators (songwriters and performers) to pay for their own music registry so the music services don't have to go to the trouble of locating rights owners in order to pay them. Would authors, musicians, photographers, models, etc have to subscribe in order to be in a registry?
And then, once one is in the registry (at least one could be found and paid), would authors be treated like The Turtles? Just as music that was written and originally performed before 1972 has been treated as if it was out of copyright, and is now being awarded lesser royalties than music written and performed since 1972, could something similar happen to book authors?
Here's how royalties could get reduced without copyright owners getting a voice.
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/12/02/good-news-sirius-xm-settles-pre-1972-with-turtles-bad-news-settlement-slashes-sound-recording-royalty-50/
But... the good news is, we can have a voice. Check out who is on the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and drop them a line. Maybe an anticipatory thank-you note for looking out for authors. :-)
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/part02/lecture
Copyright is mentioned in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) but in my opinion, copyright is also an Intellectual Property right, and the constitution upholds the right to own property.
Certain opponents of copyright are alleged to have written such statements as: "We Jeffersonians know better. Copyright is not a natural right, entitled to protection at the expense of the public good."
Source:
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/12/08/academic-copyleftists-unintentionally-bolster-constructive-termination-charge-in-firing-of-register-of-copyrights/
The above link is exceptionally interesting. It is about how some academics who are hostile to the rights of musicians and songwriters especially (but, weakening of copyright for one group of creators opens the door to weaking copyright for all creators) rationalize the allegedly so-called retaliatory constructive termination of the recent Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante.
"The public good" seems to be the excessive profitability of billion-dollar tech giants that stream or otherwise distribute music and other entertainment, and the "right" of members of the public to enjoy creative works as a perquisite that follows the subscription to- or purchase of certain apps or hardware or software.
Concerns have been expressed about the Library of Congress.
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/12/11/dr-haydens-library-of-congress-is-already-helping-big-tech-rip-off-creators-part-1-the-mass-noi-scam/
I would describe the Notice of Intent (NOI) Loophole as a variation on "orphan works". Remember the Hathi Trust project? The trick is that a big tech company that wishes to exploit ebooks or music without paying the author or songwriter simply "pretends" that they cannot locate the copyright owner or author. Therefore, under the "permissionless innovation" theory, they exploit the work and pay no one unless or until the copyright owner finds out about it on their own.
This is not the only problem. Allegedly, "...some in the anti-copyright crowd...are promoting the Library's recent deal with the Berkman Center's Digital Public Library of America to turn a digitized Library of Congress into a kind of feeder to Kickass Torrents with sovereign immunity..."
Given digitization, and the fact that it is mandatory for every copyright owner to donate 2 copies of the best of the best of their works, to the Library of Congress, that quote about feeding torrents is not so implausible. The Library of Congress appears keen to monetize and distribute what's in their collection, if one can extrapolate from what Maria Pallante was ordered to do.
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/10/25/arrogant-new-librarian-of-congress-told-register-of-copyrights-pallante-go-sell-t-shirts/
I appear to be the only skeptic about the USPTO push to discuss the Digital Marketplace. For those who wish to view videos of the entire day of events at the USPTO conference on on Friday, Dec 9th, 2016, follow this link:
https://livestream.com/uspto/DigitalMarketplace16?origin=digest&mixpanel_id=13d46f86c4b46-0398ebf1b7d5ac8-3d246e3a-1d4c00-13d46f86c4c1de&acc_id=8385860&medium=email
For those who merely want a book-related summary, there were relatively few mentions of books or ebooks during the day. Encouragingly, the focus seemed to be a genuine and positive concern for a system to ensure that "the internet" should know who owns rights to any type of intellectual property.
Speaker Trent McConaghy (of Blockchain) testified that he would like a Kayak-like (travel industry analogy, not watercraft) system presumably for finding the type of digital intellectual property that one desires at the best price.
Speaker Bill Rosenblatt (I think it was he who made this remark) bemoaned the fact that a Federal Judge (Denny Chin, as I recall) threw out the Google Book Settlement that would have established a Book Rights Registry. That Book Rights Registry would have been very helpful to authors and those who wished to exploit authors' books.
What worries me is, who would pay for any eventual registry? We know that it has been alleged that creative-works exploiters like Pandora and Spotify want music creators (songwriters and performers) to pay for their own music registry so the music services don't have to go to the trouble of locating rights owners in order to pay them. Would authors, musicians, photographers, models, etc have to subscribe in order to be in a registry?
And then, once one is in the registry (at least one could be found and paid), would authors be treated like The Turtles? Just as music that was written and originally performed before 1972 has been treated as if it was out of copyright, and is now being awarded lesser royalties than music written and performed since 1972, could something similar happen to book authors?
Here's how royalties could get reduced without copyright owners getting a voice.
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/12/02/good-news-sirius-xm-settles-pre-1972-with-turtles-bad-news-settlement-slashes-sound-recording-royalty-50/
But... the good news is, we can have a voice. Check out who is on the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and drop them a line. Maybe an anticipatory thank-you note for looking out for authors. :-)
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Creepy IP for Halloween, Maria P. Goes ...Bumped Into The Night
Look out for the #CreepyIP hashtag. Anticipating Halloween, the USPTO publishes an entertaining and edifying blog about all the Intellectual Property and copyrights on display during Halloween (in the candies, costumes, decorations, tools and gadgets.
https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2016/10/when-patents-and-trademarks-go-bump-night
Perhaps you might like to join the conversation?
Something else, prematurely went "bump into the night" and gave some imaginative and creative people a case of the horrors. On Friday October 21st, Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights who has been a courageous and outspoken advocate for creators, authors, artists and musicians, was "bumped upstairs" and allegedly deprived of internet access to the Library of Congress computer system, according to two sources who spoke with Library employees.
https://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2016/16-189.html
And
https://artistrightswatch.com/2016/10/22/google-fires-head-of-u-s-copyright-office/
Why, though? The Trichordist has some thoughts
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/10/21/google-and-public-knowledge-coup-register-of-copyrights-fired-dark-days-ahead/
According to Billboard
http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7549978/maria-pallante-removed-us-register-of-copyrights
"US Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante was removed from her job Friday morning (Oct 21) by the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who has authority over the Copyright Office...."
It is interesting to reflect on who supports Carla Hayden. Alleged P2P Pirates!
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/02/28/former-director-of-p2p-piracy-alliance-endorses-nominee-to-oversee-copyright-office/
To this author, it seems strange that businesses that consider music, movies, books, photographs, and games "content" and that publish and distribute and monetize other peoples' intellectual property ... often without the copyright owners' affirmative consent should have any influence on the Copyright Office and the Register of Copyrights. But, that's the current Administration for you. It's not likely to change in the next 4 years.
Buy stock in Google and Amazon.... and get some cool and creepy disguises for Halloween and the dark days ahead.
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2016/10/when-patents-and-trademarks-go-bump-night
Perhaps you might like to join the conversation?
Something else, prematurely went "bump into the night" and gave some imaginative and creative people a case of the horrors. On Friday October 21st, Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights who has been a courageous and outspoken advocate for creators, authors, artists and musicians, was "bumped upstairs" and allegedly deprived of internet access to the Library of Congress computer system, according to two sources who spoke with Library employees.
https://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2016/16-189.html
And
https://artistrightswatch.com/2016/10/22/google-fires-head-of-u-s-copyright-office/
Why, though? The Trichordist has some thoughts
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/10/21/google-and-public-knowledge-coup-register-of-copyrights-fired-dark-days-ahead/
According to Billboard
http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7549978/maria-pallante-removed-us-register-of-copyrights
"US Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante was removed from her job Friday morning (Oct 21) by the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who has authority over the Copyright Office...."
It is interesting to reflect on who supports Carla Hayden. Alleged P2P Pirates!
https://thetrichordist.com/2016/02/28/former-director-of-p2p-piracy-alliance-endorses-nominee-to-oversee-copyright-office/
To this author, it seems strange that businesses that consider music, movies, books, photographs, and games "content" and that publish and distribute and monetize other peoples' intellectual property ... often without the copyright owners' affirmative consent should have any influence on the Copyright Office and the Register of Copyrights. But, that's the current Administration for you. It's not likely to change in the next 4 years.
Buy stock in Google and Amazon.... and get some cool and creepy disguises for Halloween and the dark days ahead.
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
