I'm posting here much of the text of an email I received from Dr Gill Spraggs, who has been following in detail the Google Books court case in the US and seeking to understand and explain its implications for UK (and other non-US) authors. She is now seeking to compile an email list of authors who're willing to join a campaign against the kind of compulsory licensing the Settlement would introduce. To get more details, go to her website. Meanwhile, here is what her email says. Note in particular the point she makes about UK government policy, which contrasts sharply with the stand taken by the French and German governments:
If we, as UK authors, want to see our profession and culture survive, we have got to organise
ourselves, to build a movement, and be prepared to fight very hard for
what we have always taken for granted: a copyright regime under which we
control our own works and manage our careers, and which also recognises
that we have important moral rights.
There is an ignorant enthusiasm out there for compulsory licensing, both
in the name of increasing 'access' and as an answer, I think, to what
are perceived to be problems over enforcing copyright in the case of
digital formats. I say 'ignorant' because I don't think the problems
have been adequately researched, or the supposed answers properly
thought through. Moreover, I think the whole ferment is being kept
stirred up by content aggregators (Google and others) who want a free
hand to strip-mine our literary culture for their own benefit.
The Digital Economy Bill currently contains provisions that could be
very, very dangerous to us. Moreover, Europe is looking at copyright
reform again. One of the things I took away from Monday's meeting was
the strong impression that the UK is gearing up to press the David Lammy
view and try and ram a Pan-European compulsory licensing system through.
Can we do anything at this point to turn the UK government around on the
GBS? I do not know; but that doesn't mean I think it is time to give up.
I do note that governments are not tied to the schedules of a US
courthouse: but the longer things drift on, the more of a fait accompli
the thing will be. We need to shout loudly, concertedly, and as quickly
as possible.
As for the UK and European IP law of the future: I think we should be
able to explain to those who need to hear this that handing over
authors' backlists wholesale to the ALCS or a similar company so that it
can strike mass licensing deals with Google or any other digitizing
organisation, or rent out the use of our individual works over our
heads, is really not a way to run a healthy book industry, or make the
profession of authorship either economically tenable or creatively
appealing.
We have to put across our own vision on this: otherwise, frankly, we are
at great risk of finding ourselves out of the loop while the bureaucrats
and politicians do a deal with Google (or some other entity) to
mass-digitize and sell/give away our publications over our heads.
My strong impression on Monday was that right now authors' voices are
not really being heard by the government and its advisers. Also there is
no great understanding of the economics of the book industry as
experienced from the authors' side. I don't think, for instance, that
they have remotely grasped that for a career author, his/her backlist is
a hugely important economic asset. Nor that the works that the GBS
agreement terms 'inserts' and grabs for little or no payment, such as
anthologized poems, and stories and essays in multi-author edited
collections, may be very valuable assets, worth far more than many
ephemeral books. There are other issues besides the economics of the
matter, of course; but a) it is hard-headed trade & industry types who
are calling the shots now and b) if we let them screw up the economic
basis of authorship as a profession, a huge part of this country's
literary and intellectual culture will vanish as a result.
What can I say about the UK authors' organisations? The ALCS wants to
aggregate and license. After all, that is what they do. The Society of
Authors appears to be well out of its depth, both over digital
publishing and with the detail and ramifications of the Google Book
Settlement agreement. The Writers Guild of Great Britain has lined up
with the other two. (It doesn't represent many book authors in any case.)
In Canada, the chair of the Contracts Committee of the Writers Union of
Canada, Sarah Sheard, resigned from her position in disgust last summer
when she concluded that the union's leadership was resistant to
sustaining an effective opposition to the GBS. I understand that the
rest of the committee soon followed. They and other Canadian authors
have organised very effectively against the amended settlement agreement.
Nothing so coherent has happened here. Several objections have been
filed with the court. Some people wrote to their MPs. A few of us have
blogged. Nick Harkaway did some media interviews last September, and was
trying to arrange some this week, but I don't know how much luck he has
had. I was told by someone else earlier this week that the UK media have
decided that the GBS is no longer newsworthy.
As for me, I have done what I probably do best, and what I was long ago
trained to do: take a rather obscure document and analyse it closely in
relation to its context. I believe it was useful. But it has been tough
going. ….
As a result of the Ursula K. Le Guin petition, and the letters of people
who wrote to the court, it is possible to make a preliminary list of the
authors in this country who are critical of the GBS. And I am sure that
all or most of you know others: authors who have reluctantly opted in,
or opted in in order to object, as well as authors who have elected to
opt out. Please pass this message on to them as soon as possible, and
ask them to circulate it further.