Breakdown of Copyright (or not)

Legal bloggers Chantal Bertosa, Victoria E. Carrington, and Ashley Doumouchel writing for the law firm Aventum IP Law LLP share their definitive breakdown of "Copyright in Canada."

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=60d21876-89af-49f9-9bcd-945cf82f5ff9

This is a comprehensive work, and everyone who sells their own books in Canada ought to bookmark it.

Possibly the most disturbing segment, apart from the explanation of the costs of enforcing copyright, are the list of defences (Canadian/British spelling) available to infringers.

IMHO, authors and publishers ought to do more to assert the meaning of "in the public domain".

Stanford University publishes a lengthy explanation of the public domain.
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/

Just because a novel by a living author is displayed in full or available for download on a pirate site or on a so-called internet "library" does not mean that the novel is "in the public domain".

For a breakdown of Copyright in the United States, bookmark the article written for the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP by their legal bloggers Jeff C. Dodd, Jonathan D. Reichman, and Susanna P. Lichter.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=45b57c94-9e9c-4593-82bf-c51afe3b7ce2

There are two depressing take-aways (maybe a lot more) from the excellent article: it can cost $500,000 to enforce a copyright through discovery and trial, and content owners must constantly monitor the use of their work online.

For the latter, I subscribe to Blasty's full service, but to date there are over 1957 instances where Google's lawyers have determined (erroneously IMHO) that the "libraries" offering ebook versions of my works are entitled to do so.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

AI Rights

Here's an article on the PBS website exploring the issue of what might happen if artificial intelligences were granted the status of legal persons:

Artificial Intelligence Personhood

Corporations are already "persons" under the law, with free-speech rights and the capacity to sue and be sued. The author of this article outlines a legal procedure by which a computer program could become a limited liability company. He points out, somewhat alarmingly, "That process doesn’t require the computer system to have any particular level of intelligence or capability." The "artificial intelligence" could be simply a decision-making algorithm. Next, however, he makes what seems to me an unwarranted leap: "Granting human rights to a computer would degrade human dignity." First, bestowing some "human rights" on a computer wouldn't necessarily entail giving it full citizenship, particularly the right to vote. As the article mentions, "one person, one vote" would become meaningless when applied to a program that could make infinite copies of itself. But corporations have been legal "persons" for a long time, and they don't get to vote in elections.

The author cites the example of a robot named Sophia, who (in October 2017) was declared a citizen of Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia Grants Citizenship to a Robot

Some commentators noted that Sophia now has more rights than women or migrant workers in that country. If Sophia's elevated status becomes an official precedent rather than merely a publicity stunt for the promotion of AI research, surely the best solution to the perceived problem would be to improve the rights of naturally born persons. In answer to a question about the dangers of artificial intelligence, Sophia suggests that people who fear AI have been watching "too many Hollywood movies."

That PBS article on AI personhood warns of far-fetched threats that are long-established cliches in science fiction, starting with, "If AI systems became more intelligent than people, humans could be relegated to an inferior role." Setting aside the fact that we have a considerable distance to go before computer intelligence attains a level anywhere near ours, giving us plenty of time to prepare, remember that human inventors design and program those AI systems. Something like Asimov's Laws of Robotics could be built in at a fundamental level. The most plausible of the article's alarmist predictions, in my opinion, is the possibility of a computer's accumulating "immortal wealth." It seems more likely, however, that human tycoons might use the AI as a front, not that it would use them as puppets.

Furthermore, why would an intelligent robot or computer want to rule over us? As long as the AI has the human support it needs to perform the function it was designed for, why would it bother wasting its time or brainpower on manipulating human society? An AI wouldn't have emotional weaknesses such as greed for money or lust for power, because emotion is a function of the body (adrenaline, hormone imbalances, accelerated breath and heartbeat, etc.). Granted, it might come to the rational conclusion that we're running the world inefficiently and need to be ruled for the benefit of ourselves and our electronic fellow citizens. That's the only immediate pitfall I can see in giving citizenship rights to sapient, rational machines that are programmed for beneficence. The idea of this potential hazard isn't new either, having been explored by numerous SF authors, as far back as Jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands" (1947). So relax, HAL won't be throwing us out the airlock anytime soon.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Reviews 40 - John Dixon The Point

Reviews 40

The Point

by

John Dixon

Reviews have not yet been indexed.  I discuss many novels within the context of various writing techniques they illustrate, and a few (40 so far) separately, to be referred to later.

Today, I have a novel -- mostly Urban Fantasy -- by John Dixon from Del Rey books -- which was sent to me (free) in ARC form via Amazon Vine.

I review products for Amazon which they send out free samples to promote.  The deal is the reviewer pays the income tax on the wholesale price of the item, so it isn't really free, but the slug at the top of the review identifies the Vine Voice -- meaning, getting the item free, they might not be as critical as they should be.

I will post an Amazon page review of this novel, John Dixon's THE POINT, using most of what I have to say here, but the Amazon page comments are not "reviews" and not aimed at Romance readers or Romance writers looking to deepen their craft skills.

THE POINT - by John Dixon, is an attempt at a new angle on the "posthuman" or mutant human who gets "superpowers."

It is of interest to Romance Writers (probably not to READERS of Romance genre) because the main female kick-ass Character experiences a glancing infatuation after bouncing around among sexual encounters and the drug scene.  Having no home life to compare her feelings with, she risks her standing at West Point to meet her lover at night.  That's ALL there is in this novel - a mostly off-stage Relationship between wasted and weak Characters who turn out to redirect World History.

None of the characters are "admirable" in the sense of exemplifying Values our society today adheres to without realizing they are Values.

Since all the characters are on the same moral/spiritual level, there actually is no conflict -- not internal or external.  Conflict is the essence of both story and plot -- but this novel has neither.

This makes the book worth studying because it was published in August 2018 by Del Rey in Hardcover etc.  This prestigious publishing house expects broad audience appeal.  I don't think so -- but they might sell the movie rights.

Why would it make a movie, though it fails as a text story?

Because though there isn't much sex, there is Violence, and ESP powers that allow for burning, ugly events, explosions, levitation, and overpowering the Will of others, even in large groups.

There is lots of visual interest loosely glued together by a narrative line.

You don't "live" the growth experiences of these Characters, and learn their life lessons vicariously.  You are TOLD (not shown) that the Characters change their minds about how to live, usually under the hammer of Authority and threats of jail.

They "are forced" to West Point where they are press-ganged (legally) into a secret program (actually housed under ground at West Point) run by a guy who instigated the genetic mutation that caused them to be born with "powers."  Each has a different sort of "power."

This guy, the backstory reveals slowly, was in charge of a unit that got poisoned in a war theater, med-evaced to a place where experimental methods were used to "cure" them.  The children of those soldiers were born with "powers."

This is the oldest form of "science is evil" novel.

These Characters are the product of Science, and not a one of them has any sense of "right vs. wrong" -- just expediently adopting whatever ideas are floating around them.  They eventually adopt the ideals of West Point -- but there is no foundation for this philosophy.

There is no reason for these Powered People to loyally defend their country, except that their country has press-ganged them and brainwashed them.

There is a wan, half-hearted attempt at the end to enunciate the Values that West Point is based on, but it fails because it is all tell and no show.  And the infatuation which flickers randomly through the course of events is not a Soul-Mate driving force, bringing a flash of true illumination to the Souls of the couple.  There is no reason, other than being defeated by force, to adopt the Values of West Point or Patriotism in any form.  Nothing "good" is revealed about government.  There is no hint that these people will not switch loyalties again at the first challenge because there's no reason for them to become loyal to the government. 

Some of the products of this guy's experiment wash out of "The Point" program, and are sent to "The Farm" where they are imprisoned because they are too dangerous to release.  They escape and form the opposition the recruits at The Point are being trained to overcome.

One guy, some wild science experiments, and two factions are generated who strew the landscape with destruction.

The Point is the stuff Hollywood looks for, but not what novel readers seek.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Good News: Creators Have No Duty To Read All Their Contemporaries' Works

The subject line is an extrapolation.

It would indeed be an unreasonable world for copyright owners if a creator whose work was plagiarized, or infringed, or "sampled" lost all redress if they did not discover the infringement, plagiarism, or "sampling" and sue within a short period of time from the release of the alleged infringement.

Legal blogger Michael A. Keough for the law firm Steptoe and Johnson LLP reports on a recent ruling:
Judge Broderick: Copyright Case Against Justin Timberlake Is Timely; Plaintiff Had No Duty To "Scour" All Songs Immediately After Album Was Released.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f2fbc286-675c-4c31-a9d9-669bd567c212

(Italics added by this author for clarity of reportage.)  This piece and the good Judge's wit and wisdom are well worth clicking through and reading.

It is extraordinary that the defendant might believe that a deceased musician's estate had any obligation to buy all albums and attend all concerts, or view all HBO specials by all other musicians in order to discover any potential infringements.

Is this the fruit of "permissionless innovation"?

Apologies for brevity, and only one item.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

In Defense of Unsuspicious Immersion

The May 2018 issue of PMLA (the journal of the Modern Language Association) contains an article by Faye Halpern titled "Beyond Contempt: Ways to Read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN." The author describes how a beta reader of her dissertation remarked on the "contempt" with which Halpern obviously regarded the "sentimental" aspects of the novel. Halpern confesses that she somewhat took pride in her disdain for the work she was studying, because this reaction proved her qualifications as an academic critic, one who isn't taken in by the overt plot and seduced by the novelist's attempt at evoking emotion from the reader. A proper critic rejects "what we perceive as the surface meaning for a deeper meaning," a technique that has been labeled the "school of suspicion" and "paranoid reading." Halpern notes the response of another critic whose approach to UNCLE TOM'S CABIN she found "fascinating and appalling" because it dared to mention the real-world background for the novel's scene of the death of Little Eva—the actual rate of infant and child mortality in the nineteenth century, hence the frequent motif of innocent children's deaths in Victorian fiction. What Halpern found "appalling" at that earlier stage in her career was the other critic's "strong and sympathetic reaction to the text."

Now, I've written academic criticism myself, and I can rejoice in a keen, multi-layered analysis of a literary work. I endorse the principle that a work may hold dimensions and meanings of which the author is unconscious, maybe even contrary to the author's stated ideas and purposes. I believe, however, that a proper critic can (and should) begin with what Halpern calls "unsuspicious immersion" in the narrative. If you don't understand, preferably from personal engagement with the story, what the author claims to be doing, how can you answer the fundamental critical questions: What is the author trying to do in this text? Does the author succeed in this aim? And is it worth doing?

As Halpern says, a novel such as UNCLE TOM'S CABIN "does something to many of its readers, and what that something is depends on how a reader reads." One feature of this novel in particular is that it functions as a "literacy manual"; containing many scenes of characters reading and interpreting books, it apparently "takes pains to teach its readers to read properly." Yet, in Halpern's opinion, the novel is also in some sense an "illiteracy manual." Her reason for this label: "It teaches its readers to think of it as real, to think of its characters as real people."

That's the point where I gasped in disbelief and mild horror. How ELSE is one supposed to read a novel? Isn't that type of immersion ("unsuspicious" openness to the story) exactly what fiction invites? Granted, that's not how we teach English students to read and how professional critics are supposed to approach texts. Those kinds of reading, however, should build upon an initial receptivity to the story. How can we critique a work intelligently if we don't give it a fair chance in the first place?

According to C. S. Lewis in AN EXPERIMENT IN CRITICISM, "We can find a book bad only by reading it as if it might, after all, be very good. We must empty our minds and lay ourselves open." At another point in the same book, he discusses the reading tastes of the "unliterary." Such people don't care about style, theme, or depth of characterization. If anything, those elements distract them from what they want in stories—excitement, suspense, and vicarious pleasure. Their reading is "unliterary," though, not because they enjoy excitement, suspense, etc., but because they're oblivious to anything else in fiction. "These things ought they to have done and not left others undone. For all these enjoyments are shared by good readers reading good books."

Likewise, Tolkien refers to what we're calling "unsuspicious immersion" in his essay "On Fairy Stories," where he discusses the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. In his view, that's not enough. Rather, he says, "But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful 'sub-creator.' He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is 'true': it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside." He calls this "enchanted" state of mind Secondary Belief.

If Tolkien and Lewis don't qualify as academic authorities on the proper way to read a story, who on Earth does?

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Putting Violence In Its Place Part 2 - The Three Second Rule

Putting Violence In Its Place

Part 2

The Three Second Rule

The First Part of this series was written as a stand-alone post, not the kickoff of a series, but in 5 years or so, the Romance Genre field has changed -- a lot.  We need to revisit this topic in light of the #MeToo hashtag campaign.

So Part One is:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/03/putting-violence-in-its-place.html

Violence has never mixed well with Romance.  Violence is Astrologically symbolized by Mars and Pluto.  Romance is a phenomenon of Neptune.

Astrology posts are indexed here:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/pausing-for-you-to-catch-up-with-me_30.html

Yet today's society is surfacing the subtext interaction between men and women in the workplace, where status and power are used to bully women into submitting to sexual advances that are not welcome.  And, bullying-back, women who did accept in the heat of the moment later claim to have been attacked #MeToo.

This new front of the war between the sexes was predicted in the political explosion of the 1950's (post WWII men coming home) and 1960's (a new generation of women wanting control of their own lives, reproductive and economic destiny).

Women should not "work" because a) it distracts men from their work, b) women should be home having and raising kids, c) women are too weak to "take the heat" in the "kitchen" of the all-male workplace d) men will then make half as much salary because "now" men are paid to "support a family" and their wives are considered "employed" by the husband's employer to see to his readiness to put in a hard day's work without coming home to chaos and household chores.  (honest, that was the argument!)

Solution: make it 50/50 workplace, with the rules of employment accommodating the working mother.  A couple of generations of women have fought for that equality, and hit the "glass ceiling," hard. Now splintered shards of that glass ceiling are falling on the women climbing behind those who first broke it.  And those splintered shards are drawing life-blood (#MeToo).

So the "rules" (social norms invented by each generation of teens, just as they invent language anew, feeling their experience of life is unique and never-before-experienced by any human) of dating, hooking up, living together without marriage, have been changed.  Sex not before the third date is no longer a rule for convincing a guy you are not promiscuous.  Now, sex on the first date is an option. 

When women were kept at home, sex before marriage would besmirch a reputation.  Now, put out or shut up, is the rule.  Here is a UK Cosmopolitan article about the THREE SECOND RULE.  The end of the article is the most pertinent part.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/relationships/a21726445/consent-three-second-rule/

----quote----

"It makes women feel gorgeous"

So I asked Rick, “What if your date isn’t into it? Surely no means no, not go into Carol Vorderman mode and set the timer. "Well if they aren’t, you stop right away, no bones about it. But I find most of the women are. It makes them feel gorgeous if you show you can't hold yourself back because they’re so sexy."

I must admit, Rick’s justification also made me see him in a different light. The problem is that a lot of guys believe in the three second rule - it's not just the creeps, but people like Rick who seem perfectly nice, decent guys, the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 57 seconds of the day. But, for those three seconds, they believe it’s acceptable to blur the lines.

Essentially, the three second rule is not about waiting for a woman to say yes, but waiting for her to say no - and that's where it becomes a grey area in terms of consent. If you haven’t had a chance to say no because a guy has stuck his tongue down your throat before you can get a word in edgeways, does that really constitute consent?



"IT'S A HORRIBLE REFLECTION OF THE UNDERSTANDING PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT CONSENT"

--------end quote-------

Is "three seconds" enough TIME for a woman to "consent" -- and is that consent irreversible?  Is crying "MeToo" a week or month later somehow dishonest or dishonorable?

Is the Three Second Rule a product of the War Between The Sexes brought into the workplace where, in a Man's World, the workplace is an arena of combat, survival of the fittest, and raw life-or-death competition where women are not welcome?

Does a sexual advance from a co-worker, subordinate or superior, constitute sexual harassment - before or after 3 seconds? 

Is personal body-contact an act of sexual violence?  Or is it romantic?

Do guys have a "right" to claim a woman consented because they use aggressive strength to penetrate defenses? 

What is the statute of limitations on #MeToo?  Should there be one, or is sexual aggression like murder, killing off something that can never be replaced, repaired, or healed?

Many very ROMANTIC scenes can be constructed around these questions -- where social "rules" come from (fevered teen imagination?), why they should be obeyed, and when they should be out-grown or modified?


Discussions between Male and Female Lead Characters in a Romance just can not be plausible if conducted in "On The Nose" dialogue -- where you say what you mean.

The discussions about the Three Second Rule and #MeToo have to be "off the nose" -- which means in SUBTEXT, behind the words that are said is a meaning the reader gleans without being told.  It is all implied, alluded to, and embedded in the context of the relationship's shared experiences.

TV drama does this off-the-nose dialogue by alluding to - say - a City where the two shared an experience before the Show (e.g. "I won't forget Paris.")

In a novel, or series of novels, you have to write "Paris" -- planting it, foreshadowing the allusion that will hammer the point about #MeToo and the Three Second Rule, so the reader reinterprets the events in Paris to understand whatever thematic point you are making about #MeToo.

The hole in the "rules" that our current society has to fill in is all about HOW a guy proves he was welcomed, not shunned.  What is proof?  It used to be a wedding ring and the publicly stated, "I do."  What is proof of welcome now?  Women can accuse, but how can Men refute? 

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Need To Know/ Nice To Know

Authors, do you know how long your copyrights on your works last? For your lifetime, plus 70 years.  This has been the case for authors in the USA and in the EU for some time. Now, it applies to Canadian creators.

Thanks to the negotiators of the USMCA, copyright in Canada has been changed from "life of the author + 50 years" to "life of the author + 70 years".

Legal bloggers Mark K. Evans and David Schwartz writing for the law firm Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh explain "USMCA v NAFTA: What's changed, and what it means for IP in Canada."
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b8e253be-0590-4d85-983d-13dc5f9b096e

It's a long and comprehensive article, but well worth bookmarking.

Authors should register their copyrights promptly, since, until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules, there is some disagreement in the courts about whether a work counts as "registered" as soon as registration is applied for and the fee paid, or if it is only "registered" when the certificate is issued by the Register of Copyrights... which latter can take over a year.

Writing for the law firm Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, legal blogger Samuel V. Eichner discusses why the Supreme Court Grants Certiorari....
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/incontestable/supreme-court-grants-certiorari-in-fourth-estate-to-resolve-circuit-split-on-copyright-registration-prerequisite-to-suit.html#page=1

US creators ought to support the CASE Act.
Gabrielle Carteris opines on the urgency for photographers, authors, songwriters, bloggers, YouTube artists and others to contact their congresspersons in support of giving creators a cost-effective means to enforce their copyrights.
 https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/408749-why-us-creators-urgently-need-congress-to-support-the-case-act

The Authors Guild is strongly in support of the small copyright claims act, also.
https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/revised-small-copyright-claims-bill-introduced-bipartisan-group-lawmakers/


Last word: if any of our readers are inspired by history, or planning a trip to Sherborne in the UK, my friend Cindy Chant does Sherborne Walks, and writes historical articles for the delightfully eclectic Sherborne Times. The Disastrous Ending is on pp 42-43 of 132.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry