Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Writers who call MPAA or RIAA awful need to look in the mirror

By | August 19, 2009, 6:24am PDT

Summary: The medium is the message, as Marshall McLuhan said, and the message of the Internet is pretty clear. Make it available and maybe, if you’re lucky, someone will learn something from it. Don’t make it available, and it will cease to exist.

Powerful interest groups representing musicians, movie moguls, and even TV have been fighting the copyright wars for years and losing.

(Who is reading the paper? Find out at the bottom of this post. Picture from Expedient Means.)

They win in court, and governments are aligned with them. Individuals who stand against them on grounds of principle are slapped down hard.

But that hasn’t stopped the Internet or Moore’s Law. These powerful interests have had to realign their business models to deal with the new reality.

There is a micro-payment model called advertising and if your stuff is not online and available it does not exist.

This has not stopped some writers, some agents, and some academics from tilting at Google’s windmill.

After years of negotiating with the Authors Guild and publishers, Google last year offered the authors of “orphan works,” copyrighted but no longer published or sold, free money.

For $125 million it won the right to digitize books, and while it will offer excerpts free, the whole books must be paid for, with 63% of the money (including ad money on the free looks) going to publishers and authors.

Google takes the risks, Google pays the costs, Google does all the marketing and distribution, while you get more than half the money for sitting on your rear end. Pretty sweet, huh?

Too rich, say some University of California professors. Not rich enough, say some authors, and you’re giving Google a monopoly, complain librarians. You should have negotiated with us instead, claims the William Morris Agency.

Trouble with all this is you can opt out. If you don’t like the deal for the old crap you can’t give away along I-75, say so and it will be taken down. Publishers of orphaned works, which aren’t making money, can’t opt-out en masse, because they relinquished a lot of publishing rights when they stopping publishing.

Christopher Buckley says he opted out because he’s ornery. He’s also still selling books.

This isn’t about your stuff anyway, Chris, but keeping alive such classics as pup’s God and Man at Yale.
How are tomorrow’s young conservatives going to discover what is eventually out of print? And when Google sells a copy or sells an ad next to the good parts, you get a cut. Free money.

Far from settled? Of course. A judge has to approve it. But if you expect Google to negotiate with you individually for your out of print crap you’re just being silly.

Any other e-book publisher — Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, etc. — can easily negotiate with Google to pay a share of its costs and get the same deal. If Google balks sue. This deal is non-exclusive.

I should add that my own out-of-print magnum opus The Blankenhorn Effect is presently available at Google Books, and when my update is done (later this month) I very much hope to do an Internet publishing deal for it and save a tree or two.

The medium is the message, as Marshall McLuhan said, and the message of the Internet is pretty clear. Make it available and maybe, if you’re lucky, someone will learn something from it. Don’t make it available, and it will cease to exist. (McLuhan still exists. That’s him behind the paper.)

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
21
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Writers who call MPAA or RIAA awful need to look in the mirror
edward polling Updated - 4th Jul
The original blogger is charged $2.00 for me pointing out the error in their work. This is because no one likes editors. All the rest of you can read this for free. Even ipad bag blog sutudeg education news and pclos hwdb Google. l
0 Votes
+ -
"Sitting on your rear end"?
GuidingLight 19th Aug 2009
I think the authors did more then just sit on their rear ends: They wrote the books. (OK they sat on their rear ends while writing it, but that is better then standing the entire time)

Everyone forgets that without that author writing the book, it would never have existed, and therefor would not be around to make anyone any money years after the fact.
0 Votes
+ -
People who don't write
frgough 19th Aug 2009
(and no, I don't consider most bloggers, including the author of this
piece writers), think writing is easy. After all, they learned how to do it in
third grade, so it can't be hard, right?
The original blogger is charged $2.00 for me pointing out the error in their work. This is because no one likes editors. All the rest of you can read this for free. Even ipad bag blog sutudeg education news and pclos hwdb Google. l
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah...
Henry Miller 20th Aug 2009
I've published two novels so far, and a third is about to go out, and, I promise you, there's very little "sitting on [my] rear end" involved. Each book has taken at least a year to write, though that "writing year" may span several calendar years. Writing a decent novel is a lot of work.
0 Votes
+ -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Miller

But 2 new novels for a deceased writer is pretty
good. happy
0 Votes
+ -
Writers do it sitting
mheartwood 20th Aug 2009
I agree Henry.

As a would-be author, writing is very hard work. It takes long hours of concentration. Depending on your field, it may also require large amounts of research.

I've met a lot of authors in my 44 years, all of them in SF/F. Virtually all of them write by "sitting on [their] rear end" in front of a computer screen (or a type writer in a few cases). So while they are "sitting on their rear ends" they are not just "sitting on their rear ends".
0 Votes
+ -
Any other e-book publisher Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, etc. can easily negotiate with Google to pay a share of its costs and get the same deal. If Google balks sue. This deal is non-exclusive. k
And can I still, albeit indirectly, help pay them or their estates for it?

If I buy an out-of-print copy of a book at a used book store, which is the usual fate of orphaned works, then the author gets nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. But if I download a copy on Google, then the author gets some small royalty - which can, if I like it and recommend it to enough friends, add up to a less small royalty on an oprhaned work...and maybe even enough interest to justify a republishing deal.

I've got ten years worth of articles that, because the magazines I wrote them for are out of business, are orphaned works. I'd just be delighted if people were able to read them again - which it looks like Google would like to make possible....

0 Votes
+ -
Two in a row
_JohnH 19th Aug 2009
Two posts in a row, both of which miss the point completely. And both which are written by folks who claim, by inference, to know something about writing, while apparently lacking the level of reading comprehension skills held by my 11-year-old.

Better luck next time, Dana.
0 Votes
+ -
My sentiments exactly (NT)
balaknair 19th Aug 2009
NT
I would not call MPAA or RIAA awful, I would call them anti-Constitutional. The US Constitution allows for patents and copyrights to protect the profits of the idea's creator for a reasonable time. 75 years is not a reasonable time. Ideas, drugs, books, songs, and all the other types of things belong in the Free public domain after 5 years. The qualification: you cannot sell this free material or profit from it in any way. If you do profit from the idea, drug, or technology then you have to split the profits with the patent or copyright holder or provide other compensation.

And yes, I do have copyright and patented things. I don't expect to get paid after a reasonable time. We have limited our advancement by a hundred or so years due to unConstitutional copyright and patent rules.
0 Votes
+ -
by securing for limited times
lonniemcclure 19th Aug 2009
"...by securing for limited times..." is the phrase in the Constitution. Unfortunately, with expiring copyright terms constantly extended, apparently "limited" has been redefined as anything less than infinite.

Despite that the length of patents a fraction of the term of copyrights, you don't see drug companies going out of business. Bringing a typical drug to market makes the cost of a major Hollywood blockbuster look cheap, much less the costs of a bringing a album or book to market.

The section before "limited times" stated, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...", not "To secure a lifetime residual income...".
OTOH, the current system is FAR too much!

I'd say some modification of the old copyright rules, which were 39 years with the option to renew for another 39, for a total of 78 years from the date of publication.
I am a writer. It can be like sitting in the dentist's chair a times, but when I'm on a roll, the ideas and words flow freely as if I tap into a spring of living water. But most important of all, I write for the reader. There's something in my experience that I want to share with her...and to know that I touched her very soul. it's as simple as that. It's not for money. It's not for notoriety or good, or even bad, reviews. It's not to enrich the publishers and record companies. It's all about touching one another. In time, what I have said becomes out of date, and someone comes along who can say it better than I can. He learned from my attempt...and that, too, is what writing is about. I want nothing more of it than these simple, intangible things that make writing an art and a skill and not a task and a mere job.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree, but...
DanaBlankenhorn 20th Aug 2009
...eating is good, too. Musicians share the same motivation, as do actors, and both are represented by powerful interests.
0 Votes
+ -
I give this a C minus. Redo. See teacher.
davetracer@... Updated - 19th Aug 2009
One of the problems with email and blogs is that when someone is feeling very passionate about something, instead of taking some time and cooling off, they may write something that... might need a bit more editing than usual. I know I've done this.

So, Google is going to pay, what, $125 million? They're serious about digitizing everything, so let's assume they do the whole Library of Congress. That's 142 million books. So we're talking about a frog's hair more than a dollar per book, assuming the authors are alive, and care, or have even heard about this.

I have 3 books out there, so that's three whole dollars to me.

THREE DOLLARS!!!

Hot damn! I'm rich! I'll be able to sit on my "rear end", in my new Cadillac, and drive around trying to run down the peasants and serfs at my New Castle, as the Old Economic System Melts Down Because Of This Settlement, America Itself Falls, All of Western Civilization Disintegrates, and is replaced! by! warring serfs! and! lords! in! a! hysterical!! overreaction!! to!! this!!! news!!!!

[You can all breathe now.]

So, I'm supposed to look in a mirror, and see the RIAA or MPAA? Puhhleeaazzzeee. Collecting 1.92 million in a settlement? That's six orders of magnitude difference. Do you realize how huge an error that is?

Let's take another example of 6 orders of magnitude:
a) lighting off a firecracker, versus,
b) setting off a nuclear weapon.

Burning carbon is 2-3 electron volts.
One nuclear bomb yield is fast neutrons, defined as over 1 million electron volts.

That's six orders of magnitude difference. Does that help?

(Actually it's more like 2.05 x 10^8 ev per atom of uranium, but I liked the comparison so much I cut it down to the fast neutron piece.)


[The original blogger is charged $2.00 for me pointing out the error in their work. This is because no one likes editors. All the rest of you can read this for free. Even Google.]

Thank you, and *grin*,

Dave

0 Votes
+ -
Best response award!
Spats30 20th Aug 2009
Hey, you can use that $3 to get your licensed copy
of the Sunday paper now. Maybe next Sunday's,
too.
0 Votes
+ -
There's more than $1 to you
DanaBlankenhorn 20th Aug 2009
In fact that $1 for digitizing the book doesn't come to you at all. You get a cut on the revenue when Google sells a copy of your whole work, a cut of the revenue when Google puts an ad next to part of your work. In fact your cut of that revenue is more than Google's! And since we're talking here of orphaned works, you don't need to share it with the publisher, since standard rights contracts have rights reverting to you once the publishing stream is gone.
0 Votes
+ -
The works that are being discussed are not generating revenue, since they are out of print and unobtainable by the general population. If you the copyright owner feel that there is some financial benefit to holding your work out of distribution, or maybe you don't want it to ever see the light of day again because it stinks, then you still have the right to tell Google "NO" via opt-out.

Google is essentially offering copyright holders of orphan works a new distribution deal. I think that's great. In the interests of capitalism, it shouldn't be an *exclusive* deal, because that would lead to situations similar to the RIAA/MPAA cartel, and stifle the next innovative distribution system to come along.
RIAA stinks to the high heavens any way you turn them. THEY should cease to exist. No music is worth paying for on the 'net so ...
0 Votes
+ -
Reality check time: as an author you invest
many
hundreds of hours of your time penning that
great
novel. You spend many more hours finding
someone to
publish it. The publisher finally prints it,
maybe
gives it some promotion, and the big box
retailers
order some copies and display them in selected
stores.

Three months later, the retailers' computers
tell them
the book is not selling fast enough, so all
unsold
copies of your book are returned to the
publisher for
credit and the big box retailers flag the title
as
"buy if we get an order, otherwise ignore."
Your book
is now available through online vendors and
maybe a
few mom-and-pop retailers in your home town.
Oh, and
some libraries bought a few copies at 50% off.

If the publisher paid you an advance on the
book,
chances are good it never earned out and that
was the
only money you will see from the publisher.

Some time passes - perhaps a year - and your
publisher
adds your book to the other "back list" copies
clogging up the warehouse and offers them as
"remainders" to a specialist who may buy them
for 50
cents each and try to sell them through "dump
bins" in
the mass market retail stores. Your publisher
ships
most of the remaining copies to an outfit that
turns
the books into pulp; a few copies may be kept
to
satisfy those rare online orders, but mainly
they will
be kept so the publisher can retain your
contract
because lightning might strike and some crazy
in
Hollywood might want to option the book.

Any hope you may have had that all those hours
of
writing would pay off in cash are by now rather
dead.
The only people reading your book are getting
it free
at the library, and you are not seeing any
income.

More years pass and along comes Google,
offering you
some money up front and a chance to maybe earn
money
from your until now dead book. If you are like
most of
the people posting here, you say "no way!"
because ...
what, you hate the idea of ever earning
anything again
from that book?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix