Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Perhaps They Could Come in a Suppos… | The Vaunted MoCA Collection »

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Books Thomas Pynchon Would Prefer Not To

Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:12 PM

As the Google Book Settlement court battles continue, The Guardian reports that over 6,500 authors, including Thomas Pynchon, Zadie Smith, James Frey, Monica Ali, Michael Chabon, and Phillip Pullman have all opted out of the settlement, saying they don't want their books included in Google's book search function.

"My feelings were, in the end, that I doubted I would lose out by opting out, whereas I might do by opting in. Also there was the principle that copyright is important," said novelist Marika Cobbold, author of books including Guppies for Tea and Shooting Butterflies, who opted out..."I love Google, and in principle making information accessible is wonderful, but things are moving so fast, and authors are losing so much control over what we've done, that my fear was who knows, in five to 10 years' time, how this information could be used?"

I agree with Cobbold that the idea that I could search every book I've ever read for relevant passages as an extension of my memory almost literally makes me salivate. But I'm glad to see authors fighting to assert their copyright; they're generally very good about making their case clearly and persuasively. And up until now, this Google Books Settlement issue has been anything but clear or easy to understand.

UPDATE: Just heard from Sherman Alexie, who said he's opted out of the Google Books Settlement, too.

FacebookShare

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

1 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy

I agree with your basic position here, Paul. However, I would like also to register that the duration of copyrights is currently just too fucking long.

Posted by Quintus Slide on February 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM

You know, if you laid all the dead authors who still have copyright end to end around the world ... it would stink a lot.

Plus then you'd have zombies to contend with.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on February 23, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Hey, Zepol: kill yourself.

Posted by Fnarf

on February 23, 2010 at 3:02 PM

I need to read up on the settlement, does it take user privacy better into account, or would Google still by able to prostrate itself before the government with our logged reading lists at the drop of a hat?

Posted by OuterCow on February 23, 2010 at 3:03 PM

So Cobbold's argument against this is basically "I'm confused and afraid"?

Weak.

Posted by balderdash

on February 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM

@1. Just because you can't read, does not make this polst irrelevant. But thanks for providing me with some details of my new, least favorite cause.

Posted by heywhatsit!? on February 23, 2010 at 3:49 PM

@3, Save your material for open mic night so I can bombard you with rotten tomatoes and dog feces.

Posted by Fool multitude on February 23, 2010 at 3:49 PM

@1. Just because you can't read, does not make this polst irrelevant. But thanks for providing me with some details of my new, least favorite cause.

Posted by heywhatsit!? on February 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM

If James Frey is on their side, they must be wrong.

Posted by sirkowski

on February 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM

@10, you noticed that too? I kind of wondered why anyone would voluntarily be associated with him any more.

Posted by balderdash

on February 23, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Aww! I really appreciated On the Media's report on the settlement, this week. Stellar, and I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. As a recovering history major, I cite authors all the time. Whither historians, if congress doesn't straighten this out with cogent legislation?

Posted by Amelia on February 23, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Opting in or out of the deal is completely irrelevant in terms of information sharing. Either these authors can benefit from possible internet searches or they can choose to let the pirates dictate the market. Either way, every single book from every single one of those companies will be freely shared on the internet, or at least in the library, so this constant fear that someone will "steal" "your" work is laughable. The state would love to make the claim that it can protect exclusive rights for the author's life +70 years, but the very idea that even 1/10th of that is possible with the internet makes me wonder if these people have any brains. You don't want people to access your work? DON'T FUCKING MAKE IT.

Posted by watchout5