Don't Mess With Texas

Many states have objected to the Google Book Settlement on the grounds that it violates their unclaimed property and charitable trusts laws.

I chose to read the letter from the State of Texas simply because I thought it might have more attitude than say, Connecticut.

I was pretty disappointed, as the letter doesn't use any Texas-isms, and is rather dry and straight forward.

Oh, well. At least it gives me an excuse to embed this clip from Pee Wee's Big Adventure.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/334/0.pdf

Congressional Hearing on Settlement Turns into Google Love Fest

If you have 3 or more hours to kill you can watch the webcast of the Congressional Hearing last Thursday on the Google Author Settlement.

I tried to fast forward through it and everything I stopped on really pissed me off.

The blind guy talking about how Google was going to give him back his sight (by ripping me off blind!) . . . talk of kids in the barrio (really, is this guy going to break into song from West Side Story?) . . . more talk from Google (an African American guy answering an African American representative's question about how Google has addressed the original plaintiffs' complaints) about how they have devised a wonderful compromise with plaintiffs that will elevate society to utopia inducing hope filled beautiful days -- really, it was enough to make me wanna puke.

Maybe I'll just really bad at skipping through content, or maybe 90 percent of the hearing went like that, with a little downer from the head of the copyright office thrown in.

I don't know if I can stomach watching 3 hours of this Google propaganda, but I will say the real news that did come out of this hearing was the copyright office saying that the Settlement is fundamentally at odds with the law.

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_090910.html

My Opposition Letter is Deemed "Charming"

The Copyright Office Doesn't Cotton to Google Changing Copyright Law

The head honcho of the U.S. Copyright Office didn't have a whole lot to say about the Google Author Settlement according to this story, but those few words were deadly.

Parts of the settlement are "fundamentally at odds with the law," Marybeth Peters, head of the U.S. Copyright Office, testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday that was webcast. She also expressed concerns that the settlement would undermine Congress' ability to govern copyrights and could have "serious international implications" for books published outside the United States.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/178856.asp?from=blog_last3

Fishes and Nets and Donkeys and Carrots

The DC Comics Objection talked of fishes and nets, and it reminded me of donkeys and carrots and just how we got this particular "settlement".

My simple theory is that Google wrote the complicated Settlement Agreement including the $30 Million Dollars for Plaintiffs' counsel and pointed this plum portion out to them at settlement negotiations.

I'm guessing the attorneys (who were supposedly representing ripped off writers) were blinded by greed, and made little if no revisions to Google's grand plan.

Maybe that's just me distilling nearly 400 pages into something I could probably Tweet, but I think I nailed it.

Many and Varied Objectors take on "The Powers That Be"

Okay, last post I celebrated the many "quote unquotes" embedded in the vast array of Objector briefs filed in the Google Author Settlement.

Perhaps no one made airquotes funnier than Chris Farley, so I pay tribute by "embedding" him here.

The Caped Crusader KAPOW!!! takes on Google AWK!!!

DC Comics filed a dandy Objection in the Google Author Settlement today. I would have liked it better if it was in cartoon, comic, or even graphic novel form, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

I like the little digs like "so called "settlement"" -- there are a lot of "quote unquotes" in many of these Objections, and they do sort of crack me up. Here's another -- "It is extraordinary that such rights can be negotiated and potentially conveyed in the form of what purports to be a "class action"". Another gem: "Google appears to have applied a "copy first and negotiate later" approach." Hmmm, I couldn't have said it better myself. On the next page DC writes "Google attempted a "land grab" for in-copyright books. It adopted a "scan and display first, ask questions later" operating principle for the Library Project." Okay, now they are starting to repeat themselves, but I still don't mind because I keep thinking fond thoughts of the TV show "Batman" from the 1960's.

So, without further adieu, let's see how Batman handles the Joker and his stolen works.

Your Comment is Awaiting Moderation

Authors Guild Accuses Amazon of Hypocrisy in Google Filing

I just added my comment to the latest on the Google Author Settlement in the online version of the New York Times. Let's see if my pissed off rant is Times worthy . . .

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/authors-guild-accuses-amazon-of-hypocrisy-in-google-filing/#comment-316859

In response to Amazon’s filing in opposition to Google’s landmark settlement with publishers and authors, the Authors Guild, one of the parties to the settlement, fired back with a statement on its Web site late yesterday.

In its filing, Amazon said the settlement would violate antitrust laws by giving Google a monopoly over millions of so-called orphan works and create a cartel controlled by authors and publishers for setting prices for e-books.

“Amazon’s hypocrisy is breathtaking,” the guild’s statement read. “It dominates online bookselling and the fledgling e-book industry.”

The deadline for filing objections to the settlement was extended until Tuesday and various parties have been making a flurry of statements.

Today, a group of supporters of the settlement, including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and League of United Latin American Citizens, held a conference call to share their views, citing the social justice consequences of the settlement, which would make millions of books searchable online.

“Access to knowledge means access to equal opportunity,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
4 Comments
1. September 4, 2009
1:52 am

Link
Amazon’s opposition to the settlement may indeed be hypocritical, but it still makes a point worth considering.

— Paul

2. September 4, 2009
2:42 am

Link
I’m with Amazon on this one — I haven’t bought an actual Kindle, but I got the Kindle app on my iTouch, and it’s allowed me to download dozens of free, public domain books like the works of Jane Austen. I don’t want Google to have a monopoly on orphan works — I want to see them go up on Project Gutenberg and become free, downloadable e-books.

— PG

3. September 4, 2009
10:23 am

Link
So, what about CMU’s Project Gutenberg? Not as fancy as some eBooks, but zillions of texts. … and all LEGAL & FREE to download. The eBook creators *need* to add *value* to a non-copyrighted volume to be able to charge for it and make a viable profit. I’ll wait & see. …

Also, what’s the scoop on the “rights il perpetuity” copyrights in this country? These days, anything published after about 1935 has one of these. …

Finally, the book industry & writers’ guild needs to remember the revenge of the hackers on the Music Industry. … (Yeah, that group that sold you the same song in 45rpm, 8trk, cassette, 33rpm, CD, & digital-w/DRM? … all at FULL price?) The same may happen to books, and soon. The eBook folks had better hope that really inexpensive OCR software doesn’t become available. … (Cheap scanners may soon become the bane of Textbook sales. …)

PS. I have a bunch of classic 33rpms for sale (since I dumped my turntable 5 years ago). I also check out my books from the library. … I buy my CDs & spin them into my PC for personal use. … And, send some to my (antique) Treo650 for mobile play. … I WILL ***NEVER*** PURCHASE DRM MUSIC! Enjoy. …

— David Ecale

4. September 4, 2009
10:30 am

Link
One other note on Libraries (from my 2nd grade field trip to the Elmhurst Public Library in Elmhurst, Ill.):

Librarian: “You can 1) check out books from our collection, 2) check out books from Inter-Library-Loan if we don’t have them, and 3) Ask us to buy a book, if the other two options don’t work. …”

So I do. … and so should you. … The local library is the *best* use of your tax dollars. … Use a library wisely & only purchase a book that you wish to collect, read many times (after previewing it through the library), or need as a close and often used reference. …

Enjoy, …

— David Ecale

5. September 4, 2009
9:27 pm

Link
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Are you friggin’ kidding me?!!! “Access to knowledge means access to equal opportunity”???!!!! Google STOLE my book, and INFRINGED ON MY COPYRIGHTS!!! What about my equal opportunity NOT TO BE RIPPED OFF!!! I think I have the CIVIL RIGHT not to be victimized by Google!!! They don’t want to share knowledge, they want to make AD REVENUE by TRAMPLING on ME!!!

— casinocon

If you haven't guessed, I'm "casinocon".

Blown Out Tires, Exploding Gas Tanks and Coupon Class Action Settlements

I was reading yet another Objection in the Google Author Settlement (keep 'em coming, keep 'em coming) and one hit especially close to home. The Scott Gant objection which I've referenced before uses a coupon settlement procurred my former employer Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein as an example of the absurdity of uselessness of some settlements.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/08/03/ford-explorer.html

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/209/

The Jilted Lover Approach to The Google Author Settlement

Some people are so hurt and perplexed by the Google Author Settlement that they act like needy jilted lovers -- case in point -- the American Society of Media Photographers, Graphic Artists Guild, and The North American Nature Photography Association. I don't think these venerable organizations really understood what was happening to them, and what their attorney in turn decided to do . . . it starts out on the right path, and then turns into a victim's plea for more abuse.

In perusing the docket full of objections, oppositions, and amicus briefs available here http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/ this one caught my eye.

I myself an a writer and a photographer and both my words and images have been stolen by Google, so I was especially interested in what this brief (#218) had to say.

I learned that "Visual Rights Holders" were originally included in the Complaint, then cut out of the deal --

"Having acknowledged the legitimacy of Objectors' copyright interests and their substantial stake in this controversy, and having obtained whatever leverage was gained by the expansion of the plaintiffs' class to include them, class counsel then proceeded to eliminate the Objectors from the scope of the Settlement."

Whoa . . . Ouch!!! Used, and then dumped -- that's gotta hurt.

Well, if I was in that situation . . . and I am, I wouldn't get mad, I would get EVEN!!!

But, no these Objectors plead with Plaintiffs' counsel to take them back -- well sort of, they plead with the judge to MAKE Plaintiffs' counsel take them back -- including them in the settlement, with a totally lame excuse --

"Any suggestion that the Objectors can be adequately compensated for past infringements by filing separate actions or a "new" class action fails to conform to reality. Objectors lack the resources to file multitudes of individual infringement actions and there is no justification for forcing them to resort to a "new" class action and thereby by consumed by years of litigation and negotiation with Google over the terms of a separate deal."


So is this a veiled threat, or on the up and up? The problem is, whenever I ask lawyers direct questions about their intentions, they cage their motives and responses. The lawyer I work for tells me that is what makes a great lawyer. They never give you a straight answer. But if I can take this statement at face value (probably a mistake) the Objectors are really playing the victim.

I really like that "fails to conform to reality" bit. I mean come on, what reality are these lawyers at Dickstein Shapiro (a huge firm) talking about? It doesn't seem like the Objectors lack the resources to me . . . and besides that, litigating or engaging in settlement proceeding for a time is totally worth the payoff of $50 to $100 Million Dollars. But maybe that is just little ole me.

Cue Tammy Wynette -- she wrote amazing songs of strength and vunerability, but she didn't "Stand by her man like a little ole woman baking cookies" like Hillary Clinton eventually did (and falsely accused Tammy of doing), and she always said "The cure to get over a man, is a new man."

So even though I really appreciate this Objection on many levels, the Photographers and Shirley Saed of Dickson Shapiro need to grow a pair and file a "new" class action. Or I will.

Tammy . . . show us how it is done.

My Sentiments Exactly

Angela is pretty pissed off at Google for scanning her book without permission. The process to have your book removed from Google Books looks pretty difficult. In an earlier post I noted the run-around I got when dealing with Rust Consulting, the Google Author Claims Administrator when I mentioned Google Books. Just another layer of bullshit to wade through. Google is going down, if Angela and myself can get a good shot at them.

http://www.writersweekly.com/the_latest_from_angelahoycom/005572_09022009.html

I am furious with Google!
First, they took it upon themselves to scan numerous books and display the content of those books online. They thought they could legally do that. Many thought otherwise. They're now embroiled in a huge lawsuit that may not be settled for years...if ever.
In the meantime, they are still displaying 75% (YES, SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT!) of one of my books without MY permission. That is FAR beyond fair use! In response to my first demand for them to remove my book, they told me to contact my publisher. Yeah, right. My publisher doesn't own the rights to display my book online for free, either! In addition, there are chapters in the book that were submitted by others. We don't own the electronic rights to those submissions, either. This means Google has put itself, my publisher, and ME at risk of a lawsuit.
When I sent them another demand, detailing the facts above, they sent me a laundry list of steps I must complete to have them remove the book. A copy of that email appears at the end of this article. Why can't a simple email or letter do? Maybe if it was easy, everybody would do it and Google would have to remove all those titles. Maybe they thought if they make it difficult enough, far fewer authors would defy their (what I consider illegal) actions? Who knows?
What the person who emailed me didn't tell me was that I could simply opt-out using a form online and that this action would also cause them to remove my book from their database.
To opt-out instantly online, click here:http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/enter_opt_out
Why should you opt out? Quite simply, because there is no settlement yet. Google could very well end up owning the rights to print and resell your book with little or even no remuneration to you. That's right! Nothing has been signed by the judge so, by opting in (taking no action at all), you are agreeing to terms that haven't even been negotiated yet. Sure, they're offering payment of a one-time fee (last I heard it was $60 but, again, they could change that later and even eliminate it!) but you may end up with nothing or far less than your book and your rights are worth. This would, of course, affect your heirs, too.
I am opting out is because I am firmly against any large firm thinking they can take other people's property and do with it what they want just because they're a large firm. It seems to me this is what Google did. Do they think they're above the law? Sure seems like it!
I urge all authors to opt out of the Google Books settlement. I honestly have no idea why the Author's Guild agreed to settle in the first place. It stinks to high heaven. It is, in my opinion, NOT in the best interests of authors and their heirs and to allow one huge corporation to control the publication / display of books that belong to authors and their families is ridiculous!
A GREAT article on this by Gillian Spraggs begins with this:
"The proposed Google Book Settlement represents an attempt to use the machinery of a private settlement in a civil law case to overturn fundamental principles of national and international copyright law in the interests of Google Inc., a wealthy corporation."
She has also posted links to comments about the proposed settlement from lawyers, authors, publishers, and even John Steinbeck's estate HERE.
Below are the two emails I received from Google. Notice in the first one they state their program is designed to increase visibility for authors and publishers. Ha ha ha. The program is a possible future cash cow for Google! They're already making money on the books listed there via Google ads. In fact, one of my competitors is running an ad on the page featuring illegal copies of MY book text! So, Google is already hurting me in more ways than one!
GOOGLE'S RESPONSE TO ANGELA'S FIRST REQUEST FOR REMOVAL
-------- Original Message --------Subject: Re: [#372333757] otherDate: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:45:34 -0000From: Google Book Search Support [books-support@google.com]
Hello,
Thanks for your email. I understand that you have found your titledisplaying on Google Book Search. As you may know, Google Book Search is aprogram for content rights holders, such as publishers and authors, toincrease the visibility of their copyrighted materials by displaying themonline. Your publisher has an account with Google Book Search, andsubmitted your book to Google as part of this program.
If you have questions about why your book was added to the program, orwould like to request that it be removed from Google Book Search, Irecommend that you first contact your publisher directly.
Feel free to respond to this email if you have further questions about thedisplay of your book on Google.
Sincerely,
The Google Book Search Team
GOOGLE'S RESPONSE TO ANGELA'S SECOND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL
After I contacted them telling nobody, including my publisher, has the right to publish such a large chunk of my book, including the chapters written by other writers, online for free, this is what I received.
-------- Original Message --------Subject: Re: [#372333757] otherDate: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:54:51 -0000From: Google Book Search Support [books-support@google.com]
Hello Angela,
As stated in our previous message to you, the book you are referring tohas been made available to users by the publisher of the title. However,it is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that complywith the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the text of which can be foundat the U.S. Copyright Office website: http://lcWeb.loc.gov/copyright/) andother applicable intellectual property laws. In this case, this means thatif we receive proper notice of infringement, we will forward that noticeto the responsible publisher of the title in question.
To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a writtencommunication (by fax or regular mail, not by email) that sets forth theitems specified below. Please note that pursuant to that Act, you may beliable to the alleged infringer for damages (including costs andattorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that you own an item whenyou in fact do not. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether you have theright to request removal from our service, we suggest that you firstcontact an attorney.
To expedite our ability to process your request, please use the followingformat (including section numbers):
1. Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you believe hasbeen infringed upon. For example, "The copyrighted work at issue is "TouchNot This Cat" by Dudley Smith, published by Smith Publishing, ISBN#0123456789"
2. Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted worklisted in item #1 above. Identify the URL of the content within theGoogle Book Search program, such as. If the alleged infringement isspecific to a page within a book, you must include each applicable pagenumber.
3. Provide information reasonably sufficient to permit Google to contactyou (email address is preferred).
4. Provide information, if possible, sufficient to permit Google to notifythe publisher of the book that is allegedly infringing or that containsinfringing material (email address is preferred).
5. Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that useof the copyrighted materials as described above is not authorized by thecopyright owner, its agent, or the law."
6. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjuryconsistent with United States Code Title 17, Section 512, that theinformation in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyrightowner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive rightthat is allegedly infringed."
7. Sign the paper.
8. Send written communication to:
Google, Inc.Attn: Google Legal Support, Google Book Search DMCA Complaints1600 Amphitheatre ParkwayMountain View, CA 94043
OR fax to:
+1 (650) 887-1734, Attn: Google Legal Support, Google Book Search DMCAComplaints
Sincerely,
The Google Book Search Team
POSTSCRIPT: I also found chapters I contributed to another author's book posted on Google Books without my permission. I purposely did not give that author, nor his publisher, permission to publish my work online for free (because the content is from another book I still have on the market). Google violated my copyright by publishing that and the publisher in question immediately notified me that they would remove the entire book from Google Books.

The Audacity of Evil

I know I'm harping on that word again. But, what are you gonna do? Here is a link to an article in the Huffington Post entitled "The Audacity of the Google Author Settlement" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/the-audacity-of-the-googl_b_255490.html-- and no, it has nothing to do with Obama (I just like the Joker/Barack graphic) -- only, I do wonder why the National Writer's Union didn't write him instead of Al Gore . . . they're both writers, and Al may be shilling for Google, but Obama personally opting out of the Google Author Settlement would be huge news.

You may say the leader of the free world has more important things to do, but I beg to differ . . . especially with "Free" being the operative word. Free to me does not mean the ability for anyone with a big fat wallet to steal my work, but it means that I am free to create and control my own creations.

Funny, the Google Author Settlement has Plaintiffs lawyers acting like Defense lawyers and vise a versa. Didn't anyone learn right from wrong growing up? Or did they all learn the Golden Rule -- He who has the Gold make the Rules.

Deadline for Bitchin' Extended

The deadline for objections and Amicus (friend of the court -- yeah, I know ---hardy har har) briefs has been extended to Tuesday, September 8th.

This has to do with a scheduled maintenance of the online court filing system that will occur tonight through the weekend.

So anyway, even though you can't opt out and object (which doesn't make any sense) or oppose (which makes even less sense because once you opt out you are no longer a party to the suit, and plenty of entities like Amazon and Microsoft who are not a party to this suit are objecting and opposing) you can still right a letter with your grievances. I mean, why the heck not? Maybe it will just be read by a paralegal or law clerk, and thrown into a dead pile -- but writers write, and when their rights are stolen, they should write more.

There's that word again . . .

EVIL!!! Yep, that is the growing concensus about the Google Author Settlement. A group of Canandian writers has summed it up thusly --

Authors detect evil in Google's massive online library

"VANCOUVER — Facing a deadline on Friday, several Canadian authors are urging writers to reject a Google settlement offer for copyright infringement for producing digital copies of books.

"Google has just behaved as a thief," said Kim Goldberg, a Nanaimo-based author and part of an ad hoc group of six writers opposing the settlement.

"This is really Google redressing its months and months of pirating," Goldberg said. "I would say that raises the question, 'Can we trust them now to play fair?'"

The settlement stems from the Google Library Project, which involves digitizing books in several libraries.

Katherine Gordon, a Gabriola Island-based author and part of the ad hoc group, said the settlement is a one-sided grab by an untrustworthy, multi-billion-dollar corporation that hasn't properly notified authors.

"If I want to have my book scanned and sold via the Internet, my publisher is quite capable of doing it," Gordon said. "I don't want some major foreign corporation telling me they're doing it for me and it's for my own good."

Gordon, a former contract and business lawyer, said she scrutinized every word of the settlement. "If I were a lawyer advising a client I would say, 'Don't touch it with a 20-foot barge pole.'"

Hmmm . . . I guess they have longer poles up north, here in the states a ten foot pole is usually sufficient to not want to touch something with.

50,000,000 Opt Outs Can't Be Wrong

Okay, the Opt Outs are probably totalling about 5,000 right now, but if you include all of Germany (the Government of Germany officially filed an opposition, anyways . . .) then it is clear that Opting Out is the way to go -- all the cool kids are doing it!

Time's a wasting! Rock 'n Roll over to the settlement sight, and get all shook up.

Is it Evil? Yes, Sir VERY Evil!!!

Vanity Fair has reported on the Google Author Settlement with a column bluntly entitled "Is the Google Author Book Settlement Evil?"

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/08/is-google-books-evil.html

I'm reminded of the silly yet twisted Dr. Seuss cinematic classic from the fifties -- "The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T" where a young boy subverts Dr. T's attempts to marry his mother and enslave his piano playing pupils with a concoction that distorts sound. When the kid threatens to blow Dr. T to smithereens with the contraption, the Doc implores "Is it ATOMIC?!!!," and Bart replies "Yes sir, VERY Atomic!!!"

So, is the Google Author Settlement Evil?! Yes, sir VERY Evil!!!



For Bart, it is just a dream . . . unfortunately for us the Google Author Settlement is much too real.

Five Day Countdown to Opt Out of the Google Author Settlement

Get ready to write your objection, opposition, amicus brief, or just plain bitchy letter to the court expressing your displeasure with the Google Author Settlement. The deadline is this Friday, September 4th.

C'mon, Writers write . . . for their rights. So get to it! Oh, and don't forget to opt out!

Here, let me get you started -- The Settlement sucks -- they stole my work -- infringed on my copyrights -- and are ramming through a sweetheart deal for Google so the attorneys can get paid $30 Million dollars, and Google can make ad revenue off of my intellectual property, which they STOLE!!! Oh, and you can't approve a class when those affected have NOT been notified!!! And you can't use a class action to re-write copyright law!!!

Not bad, expound as you will . . . try not to get too wordy, though. Enough boring shit has already been written about this settlement, especially the 383 page Settlement Agreement itself.

For a Second There, I was Led to Believe by the Claims Administrator, that Even I Did Not Understand the Google Author Settlement

So earlier this week, I attempted to OPT OUT of the Google Author Settlement online.

http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/

The Swiss say Nein to Google Street View

While the Germans are working with their American legal team on their Google Author Settlement Amicus brief in opposition to Google taking over the world, the easy going Swiss are getting their panties in a bunch over Google Street View.

"BERN, Switzerland - A Swiss government official is demanding that Google Inc. immediately take off the Internet any image of Switzerland in its "Street View Maps," and the company said Monday it would discuss the matter with the privacy rights regulator.
Hanspeter Thuer, federal data protection commissioner, said Google's pictures were violating Switzerland's strict privacy laws by failing to obscure people's identities.
"Numerous faces and license numbers weren't blurred or were done so inadequately," said Thuer's statement, adding that he "demands that Google Inc. immediately take its Google Street View online service off the Internet" until it can ensure that public images respect Swiss law.

One Swiss image made news over the weekend as it clearly captured national parliamentarian Ruedi Noser on the street walking with a woman."

Turns out the woman was his assistant and not his mistress, or a prostitute, so embarrassment was averted there -- but it just goes to show that Google's world domination agenda is running into detractors.

Of course, ever clever Google, put their cheery spin on the outcry -- "We are excited about the discussion with the commissioner to hear his thoughts and to respond by demonstrating how we protect the private sphere with Street View," said Peter Fleischer, Google's global privacy counsel."

Yep, I'm sure you are Google.

But, now back to our regularly scheduled program -- the Google Author Settlement.

We've still got a week and a half until the deadline for opting out, and/or filing objections, opposition, amicus briefs, or just plain cranky old rants, and all I have to say is -- are we having fun yet?

Keep those cards and letters coming!

Germany says Nein to Google Author Settlement

Germans don't mess around. When they don't like something, they don't like it -- and they do something about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/technology/internet/24books.html

The New York Times reports on the Growing European Opposition to the Google Author Settlement --

"In Britain, where many publishing houses have close ties to the United States, publishers have avoided open confrontation with Google.

But some British publishers have objections and are working with Google on issues like how to determine whether a book is out of print, which comes up when books are still widely available in Europe but no longer in the United States.

Some are also concerned about a lack of European representation on the Book Rights Registry, a panel that is supposed to collect and distribute revenue from Google’s book sales in the United States to authors and publishers.

In Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Spain, opposition to the settlement is more vocal.

The German government has hired an American law firm, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, to submit a friend-of-the-court brief opposing Google."

Somehow I think Germany should write their own Amicus (friend of the court) Brief, instead of hiring American ghost writers. I'd prefer something I could read while eating Bratwurst and drinking Heifenwizen. Books, brats, and beer is something I could really get behind.

The British pansies need to up their game. Tea and crumpets is not going to cut it.

Comments Are No Longer Being Accepted

Okay, I meant to write this post about the article in the New York Times Today on the Google Author Settlement . . . BUT, when I accessed that article tonight to read the comments, and post one of my own, I was rudely faced with this "COMMENTS ARE NO LONGER BEING ACCEPTED"

What???!!! The article was just posted today, and the 11 comments are mostly of the ilk "anything that makes access for the public for free, is okay by me".

Yeah, you say that now . . . but just wait until YOUR intellectual property has been stolen! You will change your tune REAL quick. It is always okay when you are stealing some one else's stuff, but never okay when you own is being lifted !!!

Jeez, just when I thought the New York Times was a good thing again, they pull this crap.

readers' comments
Lawyer and Author Adds His Objections to Settling the Google Book LawsuitBack to Article »
By MIGUEL HELFT and MOTOKO RICH
A deal to let Google profit from digital books raises questions about fairness and privacy.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

11 Readers' CommentsAll Comments
Editors' Selections
Readers' Recommendations
Replies
Oldest Newest
1.JNagarya
Massachusetts
August 19th, 2009
9:22 amMost of the out-of-print books scanned by Google have entered the public domain. Does that mean that Google can, in addition to charging for access to them -- while putting a "generosity" face on it -- sue others who might take a copy and compete by selling it elsewhere?

If so, wouldn't that be tantamount to Google removing public domain materials -- materials owned by the public -- from the public domain by claiming a quasi-ownership/copyright, in order then to charge the public for access to its own property?

And isn't that the same scam with which we are faced with the Internet? The Internet was developed by taxpayer-funded research. That means it is the property of the public. But the taxpayer/public is charged a fee by one or another private corporations in order to access his/its own property. I think as example of online access to public libraries, which are funded largely or fully by the taxpayer: one must pay a private corporation for access to that public property.

Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 2.EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?) Narty
Boston
August 19th, 2009
9:22 amI often search high and low for out-of-print books. If Google makes it convenient for an ordinary user like me, I say 'go for it'. I am willing to pay for that service.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 3.C Arbuthnot
Shanghai
August 19th, 2009
9:22 amWhatever happened to "Don't be evil"?
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 4.drabauer
California
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmFor the life of me, I don't see the downside to this agreement. Google books have been an immeasurable boon to research, and will return orphan works to the public. I too am more than willing to pay. As to JNagara, why would Google charging access for public domain works be any different than Dover books? It's simply a different delivery system, not exclusive rights.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 5.EW
Boston
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmPublishers are just resisting Google because they are once again annoyed that they didn't think of this scheme first. Publishers (and the authors who are naive about the publishing process)need to stop fighting Google and get on board instead. If an agreement can be/has been made where publishers continue to receive money for some of what is on the web, then, ENOUGH already! And for the out of print books, yes most of them are probably in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that they are available on-line automatically. If Google doesn't put them on the web, someone else eventually will. In my opinion, why not let Google go forward--they know what they are doing--obviously.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 6.Tom
Pittsburgh
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmMr. Buckley's position makes no sense. I understand wanting to be fairly compensated for one's works, and all authors should. But objecting to a settlement just to be ornery is pedantic. One would assume he wrote his books so people could read them. The train is leaving the station bro... books are going digital. Some people still ride horses to work, but not too many.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 7.HJH
Boston
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmWhat happened to doing what is best for the people? Given broader access to out-of-print books will help students, researchers, scholars, and just us plain folk who like to be better informed. As long as Google does not have a monopoly and others can make similar agreements with publisher associations, making all older books available can only be beneficial.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 8.KF
New York, NY
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmLawrence Lessig on the settlement: http://www.benjaminjtaylor.com...

This presentation explains the terms of the settlement really well and poses the right questions. Even if (admittedly) he doesn't have all the right answers, his is the clearest and most thoughtful approach I have encountered on the topic.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 9.patientpatient
Colorado Springs
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmGoogle's proposal damages the effective systems in place to find, acquire and use out of print books. Book sellers, usually independent small businesspeople make a living from it. Online catalogs, such as WorldCat, provide a guide to library availability. The diversity of the system protects the books' availability. I don't want to have one for-pay source. It's too easy to shut down ideas.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 10.Kanga
Orlando
August 19th, 2009
2:46 pmMaking out of print works accessible is a noble idea and will no doubt be useful for consumers and worth paying for; however, Cristopher Buckley's quote says it all. Check your wallet -- wise words to anyone who has written, or aspires to write.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 11.aalakos
a965912
August 19th, 2009
4:32 pmThis reaction reminds me of the mindlessness of the health care debate. All kind of interests fighting to keep the status quo in place. But at least in this case, technology will eventually prevail. Being ornery or uninformed won't work here.
I don't see how making all information (books, etc) available easily in digital format will be a bad think.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers

Look for the Union Label!

Another urge to opt out of the Google Author Settlement came this week from the AFL-CIO in the form of this Writer's Union press release --

http://www.nwubook.org/NWU-Google-Release.pdf

Even Lawyers Don't Understand the Google Author Settlement

This is what really scares me about the Google Author Settlement -- even lawyers don't understand it -- Intellectual Property lawyers who make a living interpreting this stuff and advising clients, are incredibly clueless when it comes to this settlement. And to make matters worse . . . they write about it!

Sure, it is all right there in the fine print, if you care to read the 33 pages of the class notice, or if you a real glutton for punishment, the 383 pages of the Settlement agreement -- so a lawyer, who went to law school, and passed the bar, makes a living with this stuff, teaches law, and has the nerve to blog his educated opinions, should be able to decipher it, right?

Wrong . . . case in point . . . Michael Ratoza, Esq.

Last week I binged "Google Author Settlement" and this blog entry popped up.

http://www.bullivant.com/Opt-Out-of-Google Should an Author, or Author's Heir, Opt Out of the Google Book Settlement?

Hmmm, should I or shouldn't I, Mr. Ratoza - lawyer/blogger/educator/all around great guy?

He begins "The time to fish or cut bait regarding opting out of the proposed Google book settlement is fast approaching. This right of a copyright owner to be excluded from the Google class action settlement should be approached carefully and cautiously by authors and their heirs."

Okay, I like a folksy metaphor as much as the next gal, and the time to fish or cut bait IS fast approaching. I read on. . .

"Staying in the settlement may be financially beneficial to an author by increasing circulation of an author's work. But opting out of the Google settlement by an author or an author's heirs may make sense in certain instances. First, failure to opt out may void the protection from seizure of a copyrighted work."

Wow!!! That last sentence really nailed it, didn't it? It bears repeating -- "Failure to opt out may void the protection from seizure of a copyrighted work." Weighty stuff, it is sinking in.

Then, he brings the IRS into it!!! "The Copyright Act prevents a government body (other than a bankruptcy trustee) from taking action to seize, expropriate, transfer or exercise ownership over a copyright interest that has not previously been transferred. If an author has not previously transferred an interest in the author's great American novel, song, or other work, then the IRS (plus any other government body, plus any general creditor) is prevented from seizing and exercising ownership over the work.

The protection from seizure only applies if the rights to the work have not been transferred voluntarily by the author. If the author fails to opt out of the Google book settlement, then it may be the case that the Court's approval of the book settlement is deemed to constitute a voluntary transfer of the author's distribution right to Google. In such an event, the protection from seizure may be lost. Is the IRS licking its chops right about now?"

The IRS angle is complete news to me, and I was opting - out anyways, but I got to give it to Mr. Ratoza (yes, RAToza) to frighten me even more.

He goes on for another paragraph or two, but at this point, I decide to call him up. Maybe, just maybe he might like to represent the opt-outs. From the information on his blog, he certainly seems to understand the gist of the settlement, and lean on the side of protecting writers' rights.

So, he answers his phone, and of course wants to know how I got his number. I said I binged him, and his blog popped up, and this of course totally throws him for a loop. "You mean people really read that stuff?!" is his response. Yeah, well, miracles never cease to amaze. . .

I get right to the point and tell him that I am looking for representation and again I catch him off guard. You see, even though lawyers are supposed to wait around until clients call them, it is a rare occurrence, and when it happens they don't really know what to do.

As our conversation continues, I tell him that I am aware that I can not opt-out and object, as I would like to do both. This is where things get weird. He tells me that I can opt-out and object. I say, no, I don't think that is possible, but if it were I would be thrilled to do so.

He insists, that yes, I can opt-out and object. I know this to be false, but I side step it out of decorum, and again ask him if he would consider representing the opt-outs. At this point he says something about having to get a letter out, and asks if he can return my call later. I say yes, absolutely, and naturally, four days later, I have yet to hear from him.

So, here is the very clear language from the class action notice regarding opting out and objecting "Once you opt out, you lose any right to object to the Settlement, because the Settlement will no longer affect you."

Understood? Okay, you are now officially smarter than a lawyer.

Desperate Times call for Desparate Measures - I Place a Craigslist Ad

The Grumpy Old Literary Agent Suggests - OPT OUT!

http://graysonagency.com/blog/publishing/the-google-settlement/

Roy Blount Drinks the KOOL-AID!

The New York Times Reports -

June 24, 2009, 6:10 pm — Updated: 4:36 pm

Roy Blount: Say Yes to ‘Google Books’
By Motoko Rich
Google’s settlement with authors and publishers over its scanning of millions of books contained in several university libraries has come under fire recently from critics who argue that Google is effectively creating a monopoly of digital versions of books.
The criticism has centered on so-called orphan books, out-of-print books that are still in copyright but for which rights holders cannot be found.
On Wednesday, in an open letter to members, Roy Blount, the president of the Authors Guild, argued that such criticism was unwarranted.
“I would generally rather be a dissenter, myself, than not,” he wrote. But, he added: “I can’t see any reason to dissent from the settlement over the matter of orphan books.”
These books, he said, are being given an opportunity with the Google settlement — the chance to see the light of day and find readers again. “Google is essentially being accused of cornering the market on the unmarketable,” Mr. Blount, the author of “Longtime Leaving” and “Alphabet Juice.”
“To prevent a monopoly of the orphans, the dissenters would undo a wide range of benefits to authors, publishers and readers,” he concluded, appending a list of benefits of the settlement.
The Google settlement is currently the subject of a Justice Department inquiry and is also subject to court review.

Let's hear what the commentors have to say -

6 Comments
1. June 24, 2009 10:16 pm Link
If Google were really pursuing this project in the public interest, they would “open source” the OCR product of their scanning and let other entities, public and private, design their own search engines and products based on that corpus. Google Books would still probably be the most popular front end, but it would no longer be a monopoly, and Google would not have stolen millions of books for its own use.— lexicon
2. June 25, 2009 12:27 pm Link
Big anything is bad.— E. Nowak
3. June 26, 2009 10:35 am Link
Giving attention to out-of-print books is an issue? That’s like saying someone is too much of a philanthropist. Give me a break! The bad thing about getting too big is that fear, suspicion and envy are disregarded or considered ‘cool’. It probably would not be a bad thing if Google shared with others through Open Source arrangements but if they put that much work into this project, they deserve to get some attention for awhile. I would guess if they were professionally urged to follow public recommendations, they would be happy to take that action.— Pete
4. June 27, 2009 11:53 am Link
Mr. Blount - You may be right this time, but we’d all prefer if you cram a shoe in your pie hole and go back to goober land.— joe miklovic
5. July 2, 2009 11:55 am Link
Google is not charging for this service. I love the fact that I can find books that are often out of print and written in the 18th century or ealier. Its a great resouce, for FREE. I fully believe in protecting copywrite holders, but in regards to orphan books there is no harm being done.— Chip
6. July 7, 2009 8:26 pm Link
An electronic database would undoubtedly serve the public interest by increasing the availability of works which would otherwise be lost in dusty attics and moldy basements. However, I object to the monopolization of this market by Google, who has commandeered the first and most comprehensive collection of electronic books by brazen infringement. I’m not sure why they should get exactly what they want through a forced settlement. (Don’t tell me I can opt out of the settlement. Most people are going to go along with it, so the opportunity for independent “negotiation” is nil.)— cmw
7. August 15, 2009 6:53 pm Link
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Roy Blount is dead wrong. The Google Author Settlement is VERY, VERY bad for writers. By all means, OPT-OUT!!! If you don’t your intellectual property will be held hostage by Google. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid. Stand up, walk away, and live to write another day!— casinocon

You might have guessed - that last one is mine!

William Morris and I Agree - OPT OUT!!!

The New York Times has reported that the William Morris Agency is urging all their clients to opt-out of the Google Author Settlement.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/william-morris-advises-clients-to-say-no-to-google-settlement/?scp=1&sq=william%20morris%20endeavor&st=cse

All I have to say is I'm not the only one with half a brain after all.

In a memo to clients obtained by The New York Times, William Morris advises writers to opt out of the settlement because it would “bind copyright owners in any book published prior to January 9, 2009 to its terms.” The terms of the agreement call for authors and publishers to split 63 percent of any revenue that Google generates from the sale of a digitized book either individually or in a database, as well as ad revenues from pages where an author’s work appears.
“Now they’ve got this license to sell your books at a pre-negotiated one-time royalty that you’re stuck with unless a court changes the settlement,” Eric Zohn, an attorney in business affairs at William Morris, said in an interview. “It’s like a legislative change. Under copyright law, you don’t have anything without express written consent from the copyright holder. Now the court is saying Google is free to sell your book unless you expressly tell them not to.”

Yep, it is pretty plain, that the Google Author Settlement is a very bad deal for any writer interested in protecting their copyrights. Eric Zohn, I salute you.

The comments on this article, however, make me want to cry.


1.I don’t understand - is WME going to initiate a separate class action suit on behalf of its authors? How does opting out achieve anything other than reserving one’s right to litigate the matter?
— Paul
2. August 9, 2009 11:57 am Link
Google is replacing the old record companies by hoarding copyrights of artists and now authors. Very few content originators understand that the “gold” is in the copyright, not the “front money”. Good move on WM’s part.— Michael Scott Gallegos
3. August 9, 2009 5:31 pm Link
I suspect this has more to do with WM fearing it will lose money for itself rather than the authors the agency represents. Then again, if they do negotiate a separate deal, the only ones to really make money will be the agency lawyers.— Eric Welch
4. August 9, 2009 6:44 pm Link
This article is contradictory. Mr. Zohn appears to be advising clients to opt in.— Anna Petrakis
5. August 10, 2009 9:10 am Link
I don’t think they mean “opt out” I think they’re advising their authors to claim their titles, and then remove all display uses…except Zohn says that displaying snippets of text is a good idea. I think someone needs to edit the opening para of this article - v confusing— Alex
6. August 10, 2009 9:36 am Link
Yes, Paul correctly notes perversity #1 of this. Perversity #2 is that what Zohn agrees to in the last graf is effectively the program that Google had originally proposed—scan & snippets. But scan and snippets was too much for the AAP and Authors’ Guild, so they come up with the current settlement. It would be funny if it weren’t so painful.— Richard Eoin Nash
7. August 10, 2009 3:13 pm Link
I think it’s possible that Rich isn’t distinguishing here between the Google Settlement and the Google Books program. One involves books scanned without permission (the settlement) and the other is a “partner program” that makes current books searchable via Google via arrangement with the publishers. There is so much misinformation about the settlement out there and inexact reporting like this only perpetuates the confusion.
Still, the memo begs the question: Is Wm. Morris Endeavor planning its own suit on behalf of its clients? Encouraging them to sue on their own? Rich’s article really doesn’t tell you all that much about what this means.— Stuart

Water, Water Everywhere But Not a Drop to Drink

Jeez, a whole lot of folks just love talking about the Google Author Settlement. This fiasco has been a real windfall for lawyers, and academics, and even writers who write about what other writers write about . . .

Just last week alone there were a slew of conferences about the Google Author Settlment in New York City. But did anyone even dare to discuss the plight of the lowly class members? Of course not, we are merely the grist for the mill, the cog in the wheel . . . we are the ones who really stand to lose here, but evidently we just pawns in the game.

I have more metaphors, but I think you get the gist.

Yet another attempt at representation

After reading an article about a class action lawsuit brought by a dealer at Caesars casino who had to resign due to health problems brought on by second hand smoke in the workplace, I researched her lawfirm, and thought "hmmmm, maybe these guys could help me."

Exactly What They Want Me To Do

Well, it has been awhile since I have posted, and I could say I have taken a break from the whole Google Author mess, but that wouldn't be entirely true.

To quote Cole Porter "the old ennui," sort of put a kibash on my enthusiasm . . . or maybe I was just plain pissed off trying to deal with lawyers, and retreated into a drunken haze of Frank Sinatra records.

But, of course giving up is exactly what Google and the lawyers involved with this settlement want me to do.

Yeah, I know the drill. Frustrate the class members and they will go away. Those that opt out won't pursue claims, and those that stay in and object are going to get stuck with the settlement when it is approved. Of course those who are completely clueless are really the perfect little silent masses that lawyers bank on.

Check out this hilarious censored version of Old Blue eyes singing the Cole Porter classic. I'll have to try that perfume from Spain.

Microsoft's Dog in this Fight

Well, this lowly Author has little chance of getting a fair shot with the Google Author Settlement, but Microsoft and it's war chest might get it's day in court.

This interesting article entitled "Who’s Messing With the Google Book Settlement? Hint: They’re in Redmond, Washington" illustrates perfectly why the Google Author Settlement isn't about Authors at all, but rather, control of the internet. Click here: Who’s Messing With the Google Book Settlement? Hint: They’re in Redmond, Washington Epicenter Wired.com

Here is a meaty excerpt --

"Explaining what the New York Law School brings to the party,Kornstein cited its mission "to understand the interplay of law and technology and influence their development to serve democratic values in the digital age … to extend human knowledge and harness new informational tools to the goals of social justice." The Institute, he writes, "is in a position to make a significant contribution to the resolution of the legal issues in dispute by virtue of its recognized scholarly expertise in intellectual property and Internet law.”

And, oh, by the way, he also discloses that the efforts of "the second oldest independent law school in the United States" is funded in part by Google’s main competitor, Microsoft.

The chief investigator of the New York Law School project is JamesGrimmelmann. In an earlier career phase, associate law professorGrimmelmann worked as a programmer for Microsoft. At a conference inFebruary, Grimmelmann was discussing his views of the book settlement with a policy specialist of his former employer, and the Microsoft exec reminded Grimmelmann that the company has had a continuing interest in funding academic efforts.

On March 11, Grimmelmann laid out the project in a proposal sent toMicrosoft. The amicus brief is one four initiatives the Law School will undertake. The others are a series of white papers, a symposium on the settlement issues, and a website that will act as a hub of activity for those challenging or asking for changes on the settlement. Grimmelmann proposed that Microsoft’s contribution to fund these efforts should be$50,000, and he now confirms Microsoft pledged that amount. ThoughGrimmelmann says other contributors may emerge, currently Microsoft is the sole outside funder of New York Law School’s Google Book SettlementProject.

Microsoft says that its behavior should be viewed in the context of similar academic grants over the years. "We are funding this like we fund dozens of law projects," says Tom Rubin, Microsoft’s chief counsel for intellectual property strategy. "The issues that are implicated in the settlement are important ones. New York Law School has taken an important position on orphan works and they deserve to be heard."

Rubin says that as with other instances of Microsoft funding of academic projects, the recipients maintain their independence and are free to reach any conclusions. He won’t comment on whether Microsoft itself plans to file an objection to the settlement.

It may be a good investment on Microsoft’s part, but doesn’t theMicrosoft money taint New York Law School’s efforts? "I’m sure there’s a danger in being perceived as compromised," says Grimmelmann. "But I know it’s not affecting our work. Microsoft is willing to send us money to do good work with our students and we’re happy to take it."(Grimmelmann’s own stance on the Google Settlement, first expressed in a blog posting last November, is rather nuanced. He thinks it’s a positive development, but wants significant change — generally, ones that restrain Google. He also says that at various times, his positions on issues have been anti-Microsoft as well as anti-Google.)

My conversation with Grimmelmann came just after his session at theEast Coast Foo Camp last weekend, a conference run by O’Reilly Media.The name of the session was "Hacking the Google Book Settlement."

Turns out that cleverest hacker here is Microsoft, making an academic grant that may help put some judicial heat on its rival."

Okay, can I puke now? What the hell is the "East Coast Foo Camp"?!, and what is with all these damn sessions, and conferences, where the Google Author Settlement is discussed in detail, but apparently THERE ARE NO ACTUAL CLASS MEMBERS THERE!!!!

Yeah, I'm also pretty pissed off with all these so-called academics getting money from mega corporations to discuss so-called legal issues when all they are doing is taking the cash, and running their mouths. I mean what the fuck do they really care, beyond their paychecks?

I'd feel better having Michael Vick as a neighbor.

An Audience of One

To blog, or not to blog, that is the question. The New York Times had an article in the Style section about all the bloggers like me, who like to hear themselves type. The piece is called http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/fashion/07blogs.html?hpw "Blogs Falling in an Empty Forest" and it gives some statistics that are daunting, but really don't surprise me one bit. 95% of blogs are abandoned (I've abandoned two, but may resurrect them to link to this one), and most have an audience of one -- the writer.

I could really identify with the statement that "many people start blogs with lofty aspirations — to build an audience and leave their day job, to land a book deal, or simply to share their genius with the world."

Hmmm, I landed a book deal, and left my day job, but not by blogging. What you probably don't want to hear (but you are not listening anyway) is that writing and publishing a book is really not the glamourous life it is all cracked up to be. Yes, I could identify with Carrie Bradshaw and her book signing party -- I even had a book tour, though it didn't involve taking Amtrak across the country. It was surreal and fun to see a line of people waiting for my autograph, and to put on the headphones at the Sirius studios in New York for an interview.

The money was paltry and the movie deal never materialized -- so I went back to a day job, when I got tired of going to bed at the crack of dawn, sleeping most of the day, and selling off my cherished belongings on eBay to survive.

After the New York Times admits that some bloggers just get tired of blogging, the article ends on a positive note, with some bloggers starting new blogs. I have two or three new blog ideas, and I just might start them.

At any rate, I think blogging does keep writers writing, and that in itself can be useful. I always recommend that anyone who wants to write a book should blog. If you can crank out 500 - 1,000 words a day, the discipline alone will take you far in your quest. In this day and age however, with Google killing traditional book selling as we knew if, don't expect an advance and free trips to Paris to promote the fruits of your labor.

You might want to consider blogging your own personal diary, and if you can amuse yourself then at least you had a laugh or two.

Badda BING!

Microsoft strikes back with Bing.com which launched Wednesday -- now you have an alternative to Google. You may have seen the ads, which I don't particularly like, but I Binged myself and was pleasantly surprised with the results.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=29590

This review of my book entitled "Grand Master Flash" by Pamela Murray Winters is really indepth and insightful. In fact I like it SO much, I'm going to copy the whole thing right here -

"It was Roy Rogers who made Nudie what he was. Slated to appear at Madison Square Garden, the famous Western star wanted to make sure everyone saw him. So he called on the imaginative “rodeo tailor.”

“Nudie loaded up a metallic-leather fringed shirt with rhinestones, and when Roy made his entrance and the lights hit him, he sparkled up a storm.” So recounts Nudie the Rodeo Tailor: The Life and Times of the Original Rhinestone Cowboy, Jamie Lee Nudie and Mary Lynn Cabrall’s picture-book-cum-bio on Jamie Lee’s famous granddad.

They don’t give us the date—the book isn’t strong on such detail—and they don’t give us the photo. But if you’re at all familiar with Nudie (1902–1984), you can get the picture. Any rhinestone cowboy you ever saw—Nudie inspired Glen Campbell to write his song—any tricked-up celluloid rider, anyone with the kind of cowboy duds that ought never to be sprayed with cow shit probably owed something to the fevered imagination of the Russian immigrant tailor, whose famous shop still exists online.

Nudie always grasped at the cuffs of American celebrity. After brief stints as an errand boy for Eddie Cantor, a stage-fright-struck musician, a 106-pound pugilist called “Battling Nudie,” a negative cutter in Hollywood, and a Leavenworth inmate (in 1918, he was caught delivering a package containing cocaine), he returned to the family trade in the ’20s. He and his wife, Bobbie Cohn—whom he met in the genuine horse country of Mankato, Minn.—opened Nudie’s for the Ladies near Times Square in 1934. (“[H]e toiled in the cramped, hot dressing rooms of a dying vaudeville and a burgeoning burlesque.”) By the ’40s, the couple was in Hollywood, where the enterprising stitcher “made frequent trips to the drugstore, eyeing the lovely young ladies who populated Tinsel Town, on the proposition of getting them out of their pants and into his—custom-made trousers, that is.” Working from a pingpong table in his garage, he convinced country-western musician Tex Williams to buy him a sewing machine so that he could make costumes for Williams’ band. He opened Nudie’s Rodeo Tailors in 1950; the famous storefront with bucking broncos on the roof and a life-size horse on the sidewalk, on Lankershim Boulevard in North Hollywood, didn’t open until 1960, by which time his reputation was well-established.

Nudie’s themed suits were exquisite. Webb Pierce had one based on his song “In the Jailhouse Now,” pictured in the book; it featured keys on the upper lapels and barred buildings on the jacket and trousers. (Paths leading away from the jailhouses on the legs featured signposts reading “To Nudie’s.”) He also did more standard couture—if not workaday clothing for real cowpokes. He provided costumes for Bonanza and The Andy Griffith Show, and he tailored for real equestrians as well as celluloid ones.

It wasn’t just for anyone with a drawl; it was for anyone with a need for a big hat or a lapel full of spangles. The best-known Nudie suit was a tuxedo made of gold lamé; it encased the notorious hips of one Elvis Presley on the cover of 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong. It was often described as a “$10,000 suit,” though the book reveals: “Nudie remarked that $9,950 of the price was pure profit....[T]he bill to Elvis for the suit was probably $2,500.”

The glitzy needlesmith made the leap that the King himself failed to make: from Eisenhower-era flashmaster to paisley-era ironic hipster. As the Flying Burrito Brothers reinvented country music for the patchouli set, Gram Parsons became one of Nudie’s best customers. (His most famous suit was emblazoned with marijuana leaves; it doesn’t appear in this squeaky-clean book.) The fad spread beyond California: In a promo shot from the early ’70s, Elton John is shown with the big brim of his cowboy hat full of fist-sized stars and a two-piece white suit embroidered with roses. Nudie, who favored his own duds, made the cover of Rolling Stone in 1969, next to the quote “Don’t give me no plastic saddle, Hollywood, I want to feel that leather when I ride.”

How he got on that high horse—well, that’s not explained in detail in Nudie and Cabrall’s book. We get basic biographical detail: the origin of his name (when 11-year-old Nuta Kotlyarenko emigrated to the United States in the 1910s, Ellis Island renamed him “Nudie Cohn”), the source of his fondness for the American West (his mother ran the concession stand in the local movie house, where “Nuta’s young imagination was intrigued with the American celluloid cowboys who came thundering across the screen”), even his later predilection for mismatched boots (the impoverished Brooklynite was once given two odd boots by a compassionate schoolteacher). His father was, in fact, a bootmaker back in Kiev, and he was a tailor’s apprentice as a child. But the source of his outsize imagination, the tricks to the business acumen that made him a Hollywood legend, and any darker side of a life spent measuring the glitterati’s inseams are overlooked.

What we’ve got here instead is a dazzling data dump from the Nudie family photo albums, arranged in a book whose design (by Dawn DeVries Sokol) is as kitschy and minutely detailed as the work of the man himself, exuberantly lashed with curlicue “stitches” and a passel of Wild West fonts. The die-cut cover opens onto an endpaper of the man himself, looking dapper in a kelly-green suit studded with a vaguely Native American design, behind the wheel of one of the ornate cars he decorated in his spare time.

A whole book could be devoted to the Nudie Mobiles, but there’s just one intriguing chapter here, which explains that Nudie got a car, usually a white Pontiac convertible, from General Motors every year from the mid-’50s to the mid-’70s. Nudie would customize these cars as lavishly as his couture. One Bonneville was decorated with 555 silver dollars—on the dash, the armrests, and the silver-topped saddle he added between the front seats—and it used pistols to operate the doors, transmission (a pull of the trigger changed gears), and horn.

There’s much to be seen in Nudie, especially for design aficionados, with close-up detail of some of the chain-stitch embroidery, rhinestones, leatherwork, and other offerings from the Nudie studio. Celeb watchers will enjoy photos of the famous and the once-famous, from Campbell (dressed as if he never contemplated a star-spangled rodeo) and Ann-Margret to major Nudie customer Judy Lynn (“Now thru July 1 [at] Harrah’s Reno”). There’s plenty of good stuff to read, of course, though you could just stick to the pull quotes and photo captions (“the rhinestone outlining on Nudie suits rivals the electricity of Las Vegas for pure dazzle”) and be sufficiently entertained. (When, near the end of the chapter “Nudie’s for the Ladies,” a photo of one woman entertainer is cattily captioned “That’s no lady, that’s k.d. lang!” you sense that the apples haven’t fallen far from the Nudie family tree.) Mostly it’s lots and lots and lots of shots of Grandpa, with his Stetson, his clunky glasses, his smile like a hammock stretched between a couple of cartoon tree trunks, his paunch ever growing between his glittery lapels.

In the chapter called “The Stars”—where Nudie hangs out with his customers—explanations are tantalizingly absent. Did a barefoot Goldie Hawn pick up a pair of custom boots at the store? What is the mosaiclike picture held by Dean Martin and Nudie in their grip-and-grin shot? And what on earth did Nudie ever do for Regis Philbin?

Through the candy-floss coating of his granddaughter’s prose, you can still glimpse anecdotes of simple charm, such as when the Russian immigrant was commissioned by John Wayne to make and present hats to a group of cosmonauts. Nudie was a proud businessman—though the sometime mandolin player must have seethed, at least occasionally, about playing second fiddle to the dudes whose shoulder pads he installed. And he was apparently a happy family man—although there’s an element of the-lady-protests-too-much about the chapter showing Nudie with lotsa hotties, including a lanky brunette in a spangled, ’70s-looking halter top, the caption of which photo reads: “Such a look on Nudie’s face: how’d a guy get so lucky? He had an understanding wife who stood by him, that’s how. But don’t pity Bobbie, she gets her chance at being photographed with some leading men, too.”

Hmmm. There’s probably a larger story to be told here: about the family business and its familial and business pressures, about the history of fancy dress in cowboy culture (vaqueros are mentioned briefly), about latter-day hipster adoption of kitsch. Some smaller stories could have been gussied up as well, such as the “suit parties” of Nudie’s later life, in which socialites would commission him to dress entire galas.

Ultimately, Nudie is little more than a purty coffee-table book. But if the inside story of the canny businessman/artist has yet to be written, this lavish, worshipful effort is not without its pleasures. Nudie himself would surely approve; after all, he knew the importance of looking good. "

Now, THAT's what I call a book review!!! She really nailed it. Yes, we wrote a "Nudie primer" glossing over the details, because every great entertainer knows "you always leave them wanting more."

We were coy, breezy, and simple, and saved the juicy bits for the following books (if Google hadn't killed the market) and of course, the screenplay.

Yes, Nudie knew the importance of looking good, and doling out the goods in amounts that can be easily digested, enjoyed, and paid for. We got plenty more where that came from, and just like this clever reviewer suspects, and Jamie Nudie is fond of saying "the man behind the (rhine) stone has much to reveal."

Picture-book-cum-bio is what we set out to do, and what we accomplished, and I am so glad Ms. Winters sees it for exactly what it is. Her review is every bit as embellished, fun, and accurate in detail as a Nudie Suit.

Money Changes Everything

It never ceases to amaze me how a big fat paycheck can make people change their tune. I haven't read the original complaint filed in the Google Author class action, but I think I'm safe in guessing that at least part of my beef (copyright infringement and fair use) with Google is similar to those outlined by the Author's Guild and their attorney Michael Boni back in 2005.

The difference now of course is that Michael Boni has Google waving a $15 Million dollar carrot in front of his face to settle this case.

In my course to find representation I was directed to J. Garchik (who held a seminar on the settlement in San Francisco) by Dan Girard who is too busy to help me, because he has sued every financial institution on the face of the earth in wake of the financial crisis. Here is my original email -

Hello!

I will be opting out of this Google Author Class Action Settlement, and am looking for representation. Personally, I was outraged to find that Google had scanned my book
and had made it available online. The old adage "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?," precisely describes the predicament.

My damages include lost royalties from dimished book sales -- and as my book is photo heavy, I have also lost usage fees for those photographs. I have found photos from my book all over the internet in blogs, ebay listings, and other postings, and I am certain Google facilitated this.

The original class action complaint makes simple copyright infringement claims, the antitrust issues appear to arise out of the terms of the settlement, but may be present regardless, considering Google's position and strength. From what I've read, I deduce that the judge is mindful of the opposition, but prone to approve the settlement.

My publishing deal was very small, and I estimate my damages to be around $10,000. If there are 1,000 opt outs which is a reasonable number if authors are made aware of the settlement (the only notice I received was from my publisher when the 4 month extension was granted, if it wasn't (I can thank the John Steinbeck family for that) I would have been s.o.l.) then the value of the class on the very low end would be at least $10 Million dollars. That would not include future damages in Google tying up access to intellectual property.

There is much press, and certainly lots more to come and generate as writers are also class members, friends of class members, or could have future works affected by the settlement. Simply put, if affected writers are active readers, then there should be a flood of dissent, and a huge pool of opt outs.

As far as I can tell, a law firm has not stepped forward to represent the interests of the opt outs. Let me know if you are interested. You can reach me on my cell phone. Thanks!

Here is the response I got from J. Garchik -

I think you should reconsider your opt out decision.
Maybe you do not understand the settlement. see www.googlegooksettlement.com and the FAQs for details. Google claims it owes nothing and did nothing illegal under the fair use doctrine. You get $60 to $300 for your book under the settlement.
Your photos are not part of the settlement and are reserved for you.
J.Garchik,S F Atty

I felt this response was rather condescending, and my response to J. Garchik was forwarded by him to Michael Boni, who responded to my response with a blue line version (if you would like to read it you can scroll down) and then I responded to that, and so on and so on. It ended up with Michael Boni's final response, which was -


I am sorry you feel the way you do about the settlement, and for my presuming that your views were influenced by others. I guess I am getting a bit paranoid! You are of course right that Google is paying the costs of the Notice Program and to establish the Registry, and for other benefits as well. But Google will have no control over the Registry or its operations, nor did it have any control over the Notice Program. And I guess we’ll end up not agreeing on the sufficiency of the Notice Program.

In any case, I would be pleased to assist you in determining how your book ended up in Google’s database. If you tell me the title, I will ask Google. Also, if you let me know the name of your publisher, that may help as well.

Kind regards,

Mike
Michael J. Boni
Boni & Zack LLC
15 St. Asaphs Rd.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
610-822-0201
610-822-0206 (fax)
610-348-2526 (mobile)
mboni@bonizack.com



Thank you Mr. Boni for your attention to my concerns. I will have to point out your assumptions and inaccuracies, but I won't blue or red line to do it.

First off, I don't know if my book was in or out of print when it is scanned. If you could tell me how to determine that, I would love to know! I am currently out of print. I won't go into detail beyond that . . . I'm certain you realize your pitch on the Partner Program falls apart if I was out of print when I was scanned.

I do blame Google and its overexposure of books online for killing traditional sales of books, including mine.

I would also like to know if Google books was showing more than 20% of the book when it began, I remember seeing my book in its entirety online.

I have downloaded my own photographs off of Google Books, it is easy to do so.

Thank you for correcting me regarding the duty to notice. You're right, that is Plaintiffs responsibility --- but surely you don't expect me to believe that $20 Million dollars is coming out of your or the Author's Guild's pocket! Google is paying that money, and you have been working closely with Google to craft this Settlement.

And again for Google not establishing the registry, do you REALLY expect me to believe that the plaintiffs are ponying up the extra $14.5 Million ($34.5 - $20 Million for the Notice Program) to establish this entity???

We all know the Golden Rule . . . the one with the gold makes the rules.

But back to the notification of class members. It is WOEFULLY INADEQUATE!!! I only received notice, not directly, but forwarded as a link from my publisher to my co-writer, with her personalized message -- What the HELL is THIS? This was after the opt out period was extended. If not for the efforts of the Steinbeck family I would have been bound by the horrible terms of this settlement.

So whether the Notice Program cost $10 Million or $20 Million, it was money wasted.

It occurred to me today, that if the Notice had been printed and mailed to all the affected Authors that are easily found (my address is not on my book, but a people search costs as little as 25 cents, and simply asking my publisher for the current addresses of their Authors would have been free) it wouldn't have been cheap . . . but at least an inexpensive postcard to say "Your Rights Have Been Affected by the Google Author Settlement, visit this website or call this toll free number for more information" would have been a step in the right direction.

In fact, I suggest you do that. I've worked many a class action claims process. For many years *I* was the one doing exactly what you are doing now. Yes, it was my job to disseminate information on class action notices, and encourage people to participate in the settlements. So you see, I know of whence I speak.

I would also like to know exactly how much the Class Notice Program costs, and who is being paid what. If it is somewhere in the 300 page Settlement Agreement, please let me know where I can find this information.

As for Rightsholders being in full control of their works, that is only true if they are aware of the Settlement and the consequences. Otherwise, Google is profiting from their works.

As for the Ad Revenues issues, I think we are not understanding each other. Let's just say, I did not become aware of the Settlement, it was approved, and my book remained on Google Books. How would I possibly benefit from the Ad Revenue (and I mean an Ad for say . . . a kindle, or a bookmark, or a book reading light) that Google collected everytime someone flipped the page on my book online? In essence, Google is profiting by having and displaying access to my intellectual property.

My conclusions on the merits and faults on this settlement were made COMPLETELY on my own. As I mentioned before, I am well versed on the mechanics of class actions from start to finish, and if anyone could decipher a 32 page (!!!!) Settlement Notice, it would be me.

Even though I was made aware (again, by default) of this Settlment in early May, I have been busy, and really haven't thought about it at all until a little light bulb went off in my head last week. I looked over the Settlement Agreement and immediately knew I would be opting out, and that I should start the search for representation.

I did begin to research the Settlement online -- but believe me here -- if there was any hype to discount, it was the press releases generated by Plaintiffs and Google.

Honestly, I do not know who the detractors are that you are referring to -- most of the press I have read has been at least impartial, and some has been favorable. Let me make this very clear, I have not been contacted by any "self interested detractors." I am interested in preserving my rights, and the rights of Authors around the world. I have not yet contacted any of my writer friends and acquaintances to notify them of the Settlement, and ask their opinion about it. I prefer to do my homework first, and to find someone who will truly represent our rights in this situation. You should check your paranoia. . . or perhaps I need to delve further to understand who is objecting to the Settlement and why. I only know that *I* object to it, and will be opting out.



In a message dated 6/3/2009 1:06:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, MBoni@bonizack.com writes:


We represent the Author Sub-Class. Jerome Garchik, Esq., was kind enough to forward to me your email to him about the settlement. I hope you don’t mind, but I thought it might help if I responded to several points made in your email. Those responses are in blue, and are interspersed in the text of your email below. I think the biggest point to make is that much of what you complain of has to do with your publisher’s decision to participate in the Google Partner Program, which is a separate program that is not covered in or a part of the settlement. Also, the settlement could in no way have contributed to the display of your photos on the Internet. You should discuss with your publisher how those photos made their way onto the Internet.

We would be happy to discuss the settlement further with you at your convenience. If you still wish to opt out, we can assist you in doing that as well, but we hope you will decide to participate instead.

Best regards,

Michael J. Boni
Boni & Zack LLC
15 St. Asaphs Rd.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
610-822-0201
610-822-0206 (fax)
610-348-2526 (mobile)
mboni@bonizack.com



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:16:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Google Author Settlement Opt Out
To: jchikesq@gmail.com


Thank you for responding to my email, J. Garchik.

I do have a good grasp of the Settlement and I will most definitely be
opting out and pursuing my claims against Google.

I just received a Royalty Statement from my publisher, sent directly to me
at my current address. I've been told the Notice program for this
settlement cost $20 million dollars. This is inaccurate. The Notice Program will end up costing considerably less. If that is true, then I do not understand why
Google couldn't read my name, and the name of the publisher off of my book
that was scanned, and send a Class Action Notice directly to me. Google is
making no effort to track down Authors (in or out of print) and the
copyright holders of orphaned books. I am outraged. It is not Google’s obligation to send Notice; that is the duty of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have undertaken major efforts, themselves and through the nation’s leading class action professional Notice Provider, to locate as many rightsholders as practicable using reasonable efforts, as required under the law. Also, the term “orphaned books” has been used as a political football by the advocates of free and open Internet access to works, including in-copyright works. The vast majority of the books under the settlement are not “orphaned books” as that term has traditionally been used in copyright circles, but rather are books whose rightsholders are indeed being found through the Notice Program by the many thousands, and will continue to be found by the Registry on an ongoing basis.

$60 to $300 is a drop in the bucket (that is just one of many benefits of the settlement, and is provided only for those books that Google has already scanned as of May 5, 2009), and is akin to a slap in the face for Google scanning my book and making 20 percent of it available online. This has nothing to do with the settlement. Google is not displaying books under the settlement yet, and will not do so until after the settlement is finally approved and made effective by the exhaustion of all appeal possibilities. If Google is displaying 20% of your book, then that is because your publisher has authorized Google to do so. If you are unhappy with this, then you should contact your publisher and direct it to tell Google to remove your work if you have the contractual right to do so. Or you can contact Google directly and request that it not preview 20% (or any) of your book. My
photos have been downloaded off of Google Books and are appearing without my
permission all over the internet. Again, if Google has displayed any of your photos, that had nothing at all to do with the settlement, which excludes photographs. Your beef is with your publisher, which may have authorized Google to display some or all of your photos as part of the 20% preview display. Publications are now requesting photos
from me, and are shocked when I request a $100 (very reasonable) usage fee.
In years past, usage fees were part of doing business, and I had received
them from PBS, MTV, The New York Times, the London Guardian, as well as other
media companies.

Even though I understand I can request Google to take my book down (which I
will do) the damage is done. It is like closing the barn door after the
cow (which is giving its milk for free) has run away. Your publisher likely authorized Google to display portions of your book. Or it could be that you authorized your publisher to “promote” your book, and your publisher views Google’s Partner Program as promotional activity. In any case, this has nothing to do with the settlement, which has not yet been implemented.

Google receives ad revenue every time someone skims through my book on
Google Books. Google does not want to partner with authors and help them sell
books, that is hogwash. Google wants to control the online marketplace and
make money off of their ad revenue. The more books they make available (and
the more of that book that they show) the more money they make from the ads. Any present ad revenues, under the Partner Program (which is not part of the settlement), should be shared with the publisher and the publisher should share its cut with you if your contract calls for such a share. In fact, we understand that very few revenues have been generated under the Partner Program. When the settlement is effective and the programs go live, rightsholders will receive 63% of all ad revenues generated from ads placed on the rightsholders’ book pages, as well as 63% of the revenues generated from book sales and subscriptions sold to institutions. We believe that this is a great deal for rightsholders, especially those whose books are out of print and haven’t been read or purchased in years and decades.

Google establishing a non-profit (tax deductible of course) entity similar
to ASCAP to the tune of $34.5 Million dollars, to supposedly benefit
authors is another joke. In fact, Google is not establishing the Registry, the authors and publishers are, to enforce Google’s obligations under the settlement, locate rightsholders of out of print books, make sure the rightsholders are paid under the terms of the settlement, resolve rightsholder disputes, and otherwise represent authors’ and publishers’ interests. I was told that $20 Million of that is being used for the Class Notice Program (conveniently the Notice doesn't break this information down – it was impossible to do so at the time the Notice was published, as funds have been used since December 2008 to notify class members) that is too cheap to make even the slightest attempt to send me notice. Having your name listed on a book alone is insufficient to send you direct notice. Your address is not on the book. Your publisher should have sent you notice, and if it hasn’t you should contact your publisher and ask it why it has not done so. I only received notice by default (meaning what?) when the opt out period was
extended. Someone is pocketing a huge chunk of change here. . That is unfair and untrue every penny is accounted for and has been spent exclusively on the notice program and initial steps toward establishing the Registry.

Plain and simple this settlement is a sweetheart deal for Google, the
lawyers involved, and the claims administrator, with no real benefit to the
class. This is inaccurate. The benefits of the Settlement are summarized in the attached short outline of settlement benefits. It is designed to strip authors of their rights, transfer them to
Google, and line the pockets of Google and select members of the
legal community. This is just not so. No copyright ownership interests are being transferred to Google. The authorizations Google has received to use books under the settlement are non-exclusive only, meaning that no copyright ownership interests are being transferred at all. What is more, rightsholders at any time can exclude out of print works from any or all display uses, and can remove their works entirely from Google’s database if the request is made by 4/5/11. In print books will not be displayed at all unless both the publisher and author expressly include the books in the program. Rightsholders can set the price of their books; can tell Google not to place ads in the margins around their book pages; can tell Google not to show snippets of their books; can tell Google not to show previews of their books; can receive a hosted version of their books to sell on their own website if they like, and not share any revenues earned from those sales with anyone. In short, rightsholders are in full control of their works under the settlement, and Google’s rights are narrowly circumscribed. Please don’t buy the hype and deliberate misinformation being peddled by self-interested detractors of Google and, by extension, this very positive settlement for book authors.

Google can claim that it has down nothing wrong, and that what they did was
legal under the fair use doctrine, and of course, conveniently under the
terms of the settlement they can admit no guilt on this issue for eternity.

I've never been actively involved as a class member or party to litigation,
but I am well versed on the mechanics of class actions and the resulting
settlements. This is not my first rodeo.

I'll definitely be opting out, and I will be making sure that all my
author friends are aware of the settlement and do understand it. If you do, please review the Notice again, and consider the facts set forth herein, as your comments reveal some fundamental misunderstandings about the settlement.

I regret that I can not object once I have opted out, but I will do
everything in my legal power to let class members, the Court, the
Department of Justice, and the lawyers involved know where I stand. We now know where you stand. We regret that your position appears based on the writings of detractors of Google, of proponents of free and open access to copyrighted material on the Internet, and of those who are parroting the inaccurate statements of others. To recap, if your book is in print, it will not be displayed unless your publisher and you authorize its use under the settlement. If it is already being displayed, that is because your publisher has permitted Google to do so under the Partner Program, which has nothing to do with the settlement. As for books that are out of print, the settlement will provide new exposure for a new audience to read and pay for those books. Most authors see this as a very positive development in favor of author rights.