The Full Tweet Set on Google Book Settlement

lynnchu is trying to comprehend filemaker and make an ERD
6:49 PM Dec 29th, 2008

lynnchu is wondering why anyone would bother to follow me when I never twitter
1:54 PM Jun 15th, 2009

lynnchu thinks the conspiracy of silence on the evils of the Google Book Settlement curious
10:41 PM Jun 20th from web

lynnchu thinks Soft Despotism Democracy's Drift by Paul Rahe explains a lot
10:50 PM Jun 20th from web

lynnchu sez: Google is Borg.
7:37 AM Jul 2nd from web

lynnchu hears that more and more people are choosing to "opt out" of the "Google Book Settlement"
9:47 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu warns that Google being evil. Its proposed contract is wholly self serving and vile.
9:49 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu thinks no one company should have, and monetize, in ways they will not tell you about, data on who reads what when of all world literature.
9:51 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu thinks if the government had all that data, the partisans would all shriek. But a corporation monetizing it, is much, much worse.
9:53 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu thinks the plaintiffs in the Google book settlement are incompetent, self serving, and unconscious of individual rights.
9:55 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu warns that the so called "Registry" is a hostile takeover of the U.S. Copyright Office, and an arrogation of Congress's right to legislate.
9:56 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu says no court may force us to give any one company our private information and data or sign its non-negotiable rights-trampling contract.
9:58 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu is very peeved and will take this danged thing to the Supreme Court if necessary.
9:59 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu notes that there can be no cartel of owners of copyrights and no one size fits all deal to publish their diverse heterogenous works.
10:02 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu sez no court may sign anyone in the US to either a union or a publishing deal. Neither have to do with the plaintiffs' original claim.
10:16 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu sez the self serving class action plaintiffs prefer $50M from Google and a cut of our property forever to seeing if digitization is fair use
10:19 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu warns that the class representatives are grossly in breach of their fiduciary duty to the class in their effort to burgle its property
10:21 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu notes that silicon valley is full of vain self love over its "informational advantages" over the stupid little people
10:22 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu notes that some corrupt creeps think it is "innovative" game theory to trick the stupid little people into forking over their property
10:25 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu thinks the last thing we need is legal innovation on top of financial innovation; debt securitized into a positive feedback loop to infinity
10:31 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu thinks the last thing we need is Big Brother snooping and selling our aggregate book reading data to threadbare publishers
10:32 PM Jul 29th from web

lynnchu warns that this contraption wipes out author control and you may never be able to get your rights back because publishers will squat on it
6:40 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu warns that the class action vehicle is prone to plaintiffs lawyer feeding frenzies in the pocket of the rich defendant
6:43 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu warns that Google's self promotion as a lover not a fighter means that it can buy the best whores in town with its big bucks
6:44 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu says there is zero economic rationality to a 30% off the top for Google and even less for the existence of any forced registration
6:46 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu warns that the Registry is nothing but a special purpose entity to cost its massive costs to authors, costs that need not exist
6:47 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu says the Registry is Enron's Raptor getting all publisher duties to authors completely off Google's books
6:47 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu says the Registry is a corporate reorgs device to screw everyone out of all of their rights.
6:48 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that the Registry will block all your access to friendly federal court to vindicate your control as author over your works.
6:51 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that if Google willfully allows hacking and destruction of all value of your property its liability is capped
6:52 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that if total value destruction occurs Google need not deal with you and the Registry is entitled to dilute your claim with others
6:54 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu says that this entire thing has been conducted in secret meetings like a cartel with economic incentives to the powerful publisher class
6:56 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that it is a big mistake to confuse the many with the one in a liberty based free market society
7:59 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu wonders, whose interest is the Registry aligned with? Its sole payor? Or the class to whom it disclaims any fiduciary duty.
8:00 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes with interest the total omission of all accounting or reporting to any individual author. The Registry is the sole sub-Borg.
8:01 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes with interest the money laundry of pooled "net receipts."
8:01 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes with interest the total lack of agency duty or agency authority of the Registry to make any deals whatsoever with our property.
8:02 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that all strong positive duties on Google or the Registry to us are omitted, except for "nets" of limited uses, as they choose to pay.
8:07 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that no share of ad revenue, nor any approval of the potentially slimy companies that want to affiliate with us, is to be paid to us
8:14 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that no pro rata share of Google's net receipts from the exploitation of its digitizations/"research corpus" is to be paid to us
8:15 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that there is no accounting for any uses of our derivative work of the digitizations, which is nothing but a big fat anthology
8:16 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes libraries have co-infringed our copyrights with Google and can still be sued in another class action, perhaps.
8:19 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu wonders what is in the secret side letter between the colluding plaintiffs and defendant in Article 16 of the Agreement.
8:20 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu is mystified by the incessant impositions of confidentiality at every turn having to do with "Google's" property.
8:23 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that in the hands of Google the property, our property, is sacrosanct as to it, while in our hands our property is just dirt
8:24 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu thanks Internet Archive for the information that the cost of Google's scan per title is $10.
8:29 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu warns authors that the deal is not 37%. It is 37% of very limited specified uses of individual works and 0% of all aggregate uses.
8:30 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu warns authors that the deal is not even 37% for the limited uses, because the Registry can tax us however it likes without any approval
8:33 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu warns that no ex-TV lawyer following old media deal formbooks can impose a one-size-fits all contract on this situation
8:34 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu warns that the agency problem of class action plaintiffs lawyers is grotesquely huge requiring strong public oversight
8:35 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu warns that you need about 6 subspecialties of law including constitutional to fully understand how this Settlement Agreement rapes you
8:37 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu has faith in the American judicial system and in the U.S. government who hopefully is no longer asleep at the switch
8:38 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu repeats, legal innovation is the last thing we need. Rather like "financial innovation." Google scanning is not "innovative"
8:41 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu finds the incessant academic brownnosing of Google's innovation to be nauseating, misplaced politeness at best
8:41 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu hates Marxist analysis for its paranoia but thinks it is not irrelevant to follow Google's money here, since it has so much of it.
8:42 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu says Google has no right to force us to feed to it a vast multiple claims database that it will sell to others to dispute our ownership.
10:54 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu is disgusted by the one-sidedness of the New York Public Library's event promoting Google, probably funded by Google. Follow the money.
11:01 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu points out that the legal claim that digitization is infringement is theoretical and the damages for that alone zero.
11:17 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu points out that the plaintiffs represent no one for publishing deals. Only for their claim of digitization in the past having caused damage
11:22 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that if mere digitizing is fair use, as it may be, then anyone can do it.
11:28 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu sees that the litigants' goal is not to resolve the fair use issue at all, but to cop a piece of everyone's property, forever
11:50 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu says it's clear the litigants think their collusive fraud can be excused because their goals are all in the "open." Hidden in plain sight.
11:50 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu reflects that whether this class could be certified for anything beyond resolution of the fair use issue is extremely doubtful under Rule 23
11:52 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu notes that large burdens are being imposed and rights stripped away from individuals without their consent and this is unconstitutional
11:54 AM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu says the Settlement is a totally one-sided self serving rip-off like a gym membership or a credit card agreement, but much much worse.
3:46 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu sez no court has the power to create a rights cartel on the one hand, and a monopsony on the other.
5:54 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu thinks the way Google tried to jam this thing down the world's throat by June 5, 2009 after a brief, deceptive rollout is disgusting
5:59 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu says trade groups cannot understand the economics or the technology to make any such "deal," nor have they legal authority to do so
6:08 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu points out that the entire 4 years of negotiation was about a deal they had no authority to make
6:28 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu thinks the court must order that there may be no publication of any digitized works without individual consent of the author
6:39 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu thinks the plaintiffs should be discharged for their failure to calculate the economic damages of mere digitization pre 1/5/09 and settle.
6:40 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu thinks there are national security issues involved in any company owning all world literature and the data of all eyes upon it
6:52 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu finds the contemptuous and dismissive reference to "orphans" to be obnoxious for these are authors who care about their valuable rights
6:53 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu believes the "orphan" reference to be one of those propagandistically concocted words to trick you into thinking these people don't matter.
6:54 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu believes that all those who do nothing must be considered out. Not automatically in, as the litigants unfairly have it.
7:00 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu thinks "opt out" should only be used when a court is very careful that the class is only benefitted, not burdened
7:08 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu thinks the government knowing what one is reading of all world literature at all times would be safer than a corporation's knowing it
7:43 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu thinks if there is to be any compulsory license here, make Google license the digitizations to its competitors. See how it likes it.
7:45 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu reflects that the burden of "registering" (including by "opting out") every book and permission ever granted, by anyone, is worse than taxes
7:55 PM Jul 30th from web

lynnchu reflects that copyright is inherently individual, not collectivizable. Some decisions are delegable. But only to someone you know and trust
2:58 AM Jul 31st from web

lynnchu regards the Google Settlement as an effort to perpetrate a contract of adhesion as law, evading all protections of law, and of caveat emptor
8:05 AM Jul 31st from web

lynnchu reminds that the insights that led to understanding the problems and limits of the class action are from law and economics
8:13 AM Jul 31st from web

lynnchu feels that the common law and gradual evolutionary adjustment is the only decent way to arrive at "good law" concerning creative property
8:18 AM Jul 31st from web

lynnchu 's latest up yours Google essay is at http://bit.ly/JSGcb
8:21 PM Aug 6th from web

lynnchu wonders how Paul Aiken can say that after "settlement," it will be law that Google may digitize any books in the future that it likes.
3:12 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu finds it curious that Mike Boni says that the settlement agreement is "not a license" because it is "only nonexclusive."
3:15 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu is confident that no court will permit any self-serving, atty-fee-manufacturing 335 pg contract to upend copyright law and screw authors
3:19 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu thinks publishing deals can't be made by class action. This juicy money squeeze for professional plantiffs on a power kick has its limits.
3:36 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu notes that the google settlement is nothing but the mass sale of irrationally structured securities to public buyers, cheating them.
3:44 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu wonders who made the plaintiffs their agent for a non negotiable publishing deal from which you can't walk? Can a court?
3:51 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu feels sorry for libraries burdened to constantly spy, monitor and report to Google whenever anyone goes near the book database
3:55 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu can't wait for Google to sell us a quotation tracker, listing all books & pages using 20+ word strings from one's books, a 10 minute script.
4:02 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu wants a big cut of all ad revenue displayed with any part of any book, regardless of how the book was searched for
4:05 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu wonders where the $45M to authors and $45M to lawyers and $35M to Google's own SPE numbers came from. Out of a hat?
4:07 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu is curious how $35M for Google's own contracts and claims department counts as a settlement "payment" to the class.
4:24 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu is bemused by this "contract," or is it now "law," to say that $35M paid to yourself is a $35M benefit to "the class."
7:11 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu would like to see the economics, the math, and the basis in law or restitution regarding the "damages" payments in this
8:19 AM Aug 15th from web

lynnchu warns that Google has no individual accounting obligations to authors per work or per use type, and need only pay the Registry net pools.
11:50 PM Aug 18th from web

lynnchu is thankful that Scott Gant of Boies Schiller has filed a Rule 23 objection to the Google Book Settlement. Can't wait to read.
9:43 AM Aug 19th from web

lynnchu wonders how Google and the plaintiffs can have the chutzpah to turn a federal court into their public offering sales platform
7:01 AM Aug 21st from web

lynnchu doesn't really think attorneys fees for business planning are in the least bit appropriate in any litigation claim settlement
7:05 AM Aug 21st from web

lynnchu would reject the deal offered in Google's "Settlement" on the grounds that ads on books aren't subject to prior author approval alone
7:09 AM Aug 21st from web

lynnchu warns that the Google settlement fine print says no ad revenues if a book is found from the main search bar are paid to the class
7:11 AM Aug 21st from web

lynnchu also warns they are pretending that payments will be made on sales to individuals, but really it is to a net pool. Classic security.
7:14 AM Aug 21st from web

lynnchu also warns that the fine print says you waive all FUTURE claims re: your book AND all matters between you and the publisher re: digital
7:18 AM Aug 21st from web

lynnchu says the forced arbitration clause covering all future claims and issues re: book digital, is the main reason authors have to opt out
7:25 AM Aug 21st from web

lynnchu wants replevin of the asset Google stole, the digitizations or "research corpus."
11:28 AM Aug 26th from web

lynnchu thinks the thief of an asset has no right to lease it back to its owners on onerous, burdensome, rights-waiving terms
11:34 AM Aug 26th from web

lynnchu sez economists who say digitizing is a public good totally miss the point that without owner consent you destroy that market.
8:59 PM Aug 26th from web

lynnchu notes that under the law authors own the stolen digitizations, not Google, nor publishers, and only authors may organize to manage them
9:02 PM Aug 26th from web

lynnchu wonders if Congress notices Google enticing the courts to flip copyright law on its head to install a collusive "deal" for itself instead
9:08 PM Aug 26th from web

lynnchu thinks Google might be entitled to a Visa merchant fee, at best, for its scan and merchant cart. But only with regular personal accounting.
9:10 PM Aug 26th from web

lynnchu wishes some green eyeshade corporate wonks would get a gander at the Google monster and tear it from limb to limb, tedious though it is
6:21 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu says publishers are in it to try to keep authors out of federal court by forcing (controlled) arbitration upon them over who owns digital
6:21 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu says sure, the big fat digital anthology is a public good, but it's not Google's; it's its owners'. Replevin the thief!
6:24 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu notes that there is nothing more substantively rights modifying than rewriting all your book contracts and forcing a license on you
6:28 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu notes that property is about possession and control, and owners are entitled to 100% control, not the non-innovative copying thief.
6:29 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu says Google is doing Al Gore one better by claiming to have invented digital, then forcing you into an abusive contract to exploit your work
6:36 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu wonders if class action litigators really know what they are doing in negotiating complex business contracts
6:37 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu thinks the court might set up shop over the asset Google stuck on its servers and license it to Yahoo, Microsoft, Internet Archive, etc
6:40 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu figures between everyone who will want to use the asset Google's $70M in costs will be paid off in no time, then 100% to its owners
6:41 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu really thinks, though, that Google can just eat all its costs of scanning, as it assumed that risk, and treated our consent like dirt.
6:46 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu thinks Google's utilization of the "opt out" device to force a contract upon us all is deliberate manipulation and fraud on the court
6:47 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu notes that book publishers are not due 50% of the shares of any owner entity controlling the Asset since all rights are reserved by authors
6:48 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu notes that revenues from display and sale of individual books is not the big ticket revenue item from the data asset by Google
6:49 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu figures Google must be cackling with glee over how it rolled the plaintiffs lawyers, fee-bound, and bought off and/or blinded everyone else
6:53 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu wonders if anybody's got the number of the securities fraud division, to investigate this deceptive public offering of shares in a Registry
6:59 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu reminds that it was Tacitus who first said, the more laws, the more corrupt the state. I'm sure he also meant convoluted pseudo-contracts.
7:03 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu feels sorry for kindly authors who signed permissions forms granting their works to reprinters who can now cop their Google money
7:05 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu also feels sorry for authors who signed forms granting 10-20 people rights in their works thinking each was just about a particular reprint
7:09 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu feels sorry about the effect on everyone's OP clauses possibly making OP now nonexistent and the print publisher boss forevermore
7:11 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu wonders if a class action can be ginned up to reinstate the hoary old principle of publishing law that the OP clause may not be omitted
7:13 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu thinks it's time all agents demand 50% net 2 yrs after 1st print pub, 75% 2 yrs after that, and perhaps termination after 7 years on digital
7:31 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu wishes she could get pain and suffering for the abuse and loss of sleep the Google Book Settlement has inflicted upon her
7:37 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu wonders hypothetically what the damages on the class of all the pain and suffering of having to read the settlement agreement, might be
7:39 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu notes that if the world literature digitization asset is of untold value then we owners are waiting on that check, pro rata.
7:42 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu says Google's game here is to wad a big ball of contracts up into a "settlement agmt" confusingly enough to trick a court into blessing it
8:08 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu says not one of these contracts can be shoved down any owner's throat using this trick
8:09 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu even feels a little sorry for book publishers whose digital rights have all been now made so insecure by Google's thievery and tricksterism
8:12 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu notes that it is less the digitization per se that is the sin, but the use for any and all commercial gain without express owner permission
8:16 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu thinks the Brits may be less blinded than Americans in this because they still maintain root conceptions of replevin, trespass and trover
8:18 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu feels the class action vehicle is in sore need of reform if it leads to such conceptual error and monstrous waste of time and money
8:28 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu even feels a tad of sympathy for the well meaning but sorely deluded plaintiffs in this, though much less for their fee grubbing lawyers
8:29 AM Aug 27th from web

lynnchu is considering acquiring a trio of border terriers named replevin, trespass, and trover
8.28.09

lynnchu notes that even to "opt out" fully is physically impossible, since no one knows all the permissions they or anyone else ever granted.
8.28.09

lynnchu says Google can run scripts on our data and list out all authors, publishers AND inserts if it wants to, tomorrow. So why won't it?
8.28.09

lynnchu says, oh no, we all have to feed Google ever more data, to no purpose except to give Google more assets and ways of infringing us later
8.28.09

lynnchu says the proposed Registry is unquestionably a security, sold for the price of everyone's digital copyrights and 335 pages of rights waivers
8.28.09

lynnchu says adversarial process, as deal, is one on one. For justice as deal, "classes" must fight before Congress's process.
8.29.09

lynnchu thinks that Marxist class analysis is a tad outmoded, including the 60's era update version.
8.29.09

lynnchu thinks Google can go test out its theories on herd manipulation in the land of caveat emptor, rather than federal court
8.29.09

lynnchu notes that MFNs are used by owners to equalize pay to themselves, not by the publisher to control future owner licenses to other publishers
8.30.09

lynnchu says respect for copyright, contract, and individual consent inspires market differentiation and competition among publishers naturally.
8.30.09

lynnchu notes that Google would never get away with such suffocating control on future owner licenses, if it negotiated with many different owners
8.30.09

lynnchu says the plaintiffs represent no one. Their authority under class action was limited and, incompetent to deal, they naturally got rolled.
8.30.09

lynnchu notes that the brilliance of copyright law is that if one doesn't really mind an infringer's infringing, then all one need do is—nothing!
8.31.09

lynnchu says it is like Alice down the rabbit hole, requested to "Eat Me" and to have tea and conversation with the Mad Hatter and dormouse.
8.31.09

lynnchu says such plaintiffs are heedless of individuals, their works, facts and circumstances, because they are not them. They wannabe 10 feet tall
8.31.09

lynnchu says the horror of the "class action" is how it winds professional plaintiffs up like Energizer bunnies on crack.
8.31.09

lynnchu says the beauty of the common law is how the hassle factor quells unneeded disputes.
8.31.09

lynnchu says that lawyers just want to be paid, as the Greeks knew, and Dickens; this is not a good guide to new directions for law's simple rules.
8.31.09

lynnchu warns that Google's scheme is riddled with bribes to all the many agents, what economists term an "agency problem."
8.31.09

lynnchu recalls that Justice Holmes shrugged that Congress could do whatever nonsense it liked to you to abridge your liberty. Not that Google could
9.1.09

lynnchu repeats, both "opt out" and "opt in" is nothing but a data demand for Google's private commercial gain, a grossly improper use of the courts
9.1.09

lynnchu notes that payment is being made for a multiple claims database, not for damages—a bribe to agents and publishers, who are also aggregators
9.1.09

lynnchu notes that here, "opt out" is an individualist way to avoid this "class" termination of copyright law—a devil take the hindmost approach
9.4.09

lynnchu says Google is the minotaur in the labyrinth.
9.4.09

lynnchu says the Settlement Agreement is a deconstructivist witticism.
9.4.09

lynnchu says the Agreement is nothing but a pile of oaths of fealty to and sovereign immunization of Lord Google, forever, as to anything
9.4.09

lynnchu says the Agreement is an idiotic mess that no one would sign to in the free market, except those who don't care, or are desperate
9.4.09

lynnchu says the effort to sell this proposal engages consumer and securities fraud behaviors much worse than those Pfizer was recently knocked for
9.4.09

lynnchu says the "Lord forgive them they know not what they do" approach may not be the correct one in this case
9.4.09

lynnchu says a flexible simple rule beats a lunatic regulatory contraption every time
9.4.09

lynnchu observes that Creative Commons is another simple rule. Discretionary de-properitization. Emphasis on discretionary.
9.4.09

lynnchu thinks there has been deliberate misleading in the effort to sell this business proposal for corporate gain—opt out opt in, US only, no harm
9.4.09

lynnchu thinks it is bad faith to exploit the public's trust in the federal courts, all to pitch a vast, deliberately obfuscatory business proposal
9.4.09

lynnchu says such maunderings as this Agreement bring disrepute upon the law, to the bad effect limned by Montesquieu in Persian Letter No. 80
9.4.09

lynnchu notes the Orwellian doubletalk in Google's claim to "comply" with the privacy policy that users agree to when they use Google's site.
9.5.09

lynnchu thinks it clear that Google intends to twist "privacy" to mean imposing confidentiality on others, and nontransparency, to serve only itself
9.6.09

lynnchu says there is no such thing as an orphan. A licensor can ALWAYS be found. If their claim is dubious, the licensee's good faith is a defense.
9.6.09

lynnchu notes that "orphan" is a mere propaganda term, meant to confuse, distort, and mislead, perpetrated by those who want copyright law begone.
9.6.09

lynnchu says radical copyright reformers are victims of their own foolish pride, failing to see the superiority of the simple over the complex.
9.6.09

lynnchu notes that Google is already trying to use publishers as pawns to impose its Silicon Valley fetish on authors—the confidentiality agreement.
9.6.09

lynnchu says the only effective power against corporations is consumer power. People power, backed up by state and common law that protects them.
9.6.09

lynnchu says most mental constructions imagining perfect micromanagement to control others are phantasms, and must not be imposed as law or contract
9.6.09

lynnchu thanks David D Friedman, son of Milton, for pointing out Silicon Valley's obsession with cascade theory in his new novel, Salamander.
9.6.09

lynnchu says that the lines of proper agency authority have not been drawn in the proposed Google settlement.
9.6.09

lynnchu says the monopolistic effects are bad, but secondary to, and derivative from, the original sins: failure of agency and failure of contract
9.6.09

lynnchu says no power of attorney is so broad as to bind all one's past present and future business affairs non-terminably w/o notice or consent.
9.6.09

lynnchu thinks it's true that anti-government types go overboard when they ignore government's vital role in checking evils in the private sector
9.6.09

lynnchu also thinks it's correct for anti-government types to warn that bureaucrats are subject to Bartleby the Scrivener syndrome.
9.6.09

lynnchu says Google is now direct mailing authors and agents to sign onto its AdWords service using the dbase it just gathered in the settlement.
9.8.09

lynnchu is pleased to announce that her and Kellogg Huber Hanson's objection on behalf of 58 agency clients and AJSA, joined by NWU, is now filed
9.8.09

lynnchu notes that a non-negotiable set of contract terms forced upon everyone in America is per se price-fixing, regardless of any court blessings.
9.8.09

lynnchu says Google has no right to possession of our data asset. Authors demand its replevin to the Copyright Office and Library of Congress.
7:20 AM Sep 11th from web

lynnchu thinks it exquisite irony that bloggers, would, under the Google settlement, have more rights under copyright than authors of books
9:32 AM Sep 11th from web

lynnchu feels it is important to understand that Google's behavior in the so called book settlement matter was deliberate fraud of the helpless.
7:03 PM Sep 13th from web

lynnchu notes that commercial exploitation of individuals free to exercise caveat emptor is acceptable, but manipulation en masse is not.
8:47 AM Sep 14th from web

lynnchu thinks a "don't be evil" corporate motto, in itself, can only mean, "watch your wallet."
10:19 AM Sep 14th from web

lynnchu is disgusted by Google's intentionally exploitive, obfuscatory, and unethical attempt to make off with everyone's copyrights.
3:42 PM Sep 14th from web

lynnchu thinks latter day Panglossians who believe that free market theory justifies behaving unethically are mere idiots
3:48 PM Sep 14th from web

lynnchu recalls that a rule of registration has always been rejected by Congress for unfairness to creators, except prior to suit.
4:12 PM Sep 14th from web

lynnchu warns all authors and agents that a war is on over ownership of author's rights, and all publishers are rushing to exploit their ignorance.
9.18.09

lynnchu warns that authors of good works with long term value are especially at risk. Hard lawyering of book contracts is needed as never before.
9.18.09

lynnchu can only throw up her hands to say that the Google settlement is an insanely ill-conceived wad of despotic micromanagement.
10:12 PM Sep 18th from web

lynnchu is happy to report that Google has folded. It wants the fairness hearing postponed, to avoid the vitriol poised to explode at SDNY on 10/7.
9.23.09

lynnchu thinks the fomenters of the costly debacle of the Google Book Settlement need to get the heck out of Dodge now before doing any more damage.
9.23.09

lynnchu is amazed that Authors Guild thinks it'll get a "reset" and do-over, after 5 years of squeeze racketeering as eager, willing pawns of Google
9.23.09

lynnchu warns that Google and Guild spin that all they need are a few deal tweaks from the antitrust division at Justice is just that. Spin.
9.23.09

lynnchu thinks it may be the best public interest to just litigate whether digitization without exploitation is fair use, to a final conclusion
10.2.09

lynnchu thinks there are narrow grounds to settle and excuse infringement by Google—if it shares its stolen scans with all other publishers fairly.
10.2.09

lynnchu thinks corporate venality is understandable and excusable in the fair play of competition—but only to a point. Google is past that point.
10.2.09

lynnchu thinks that to parcel out special interest group representatives at a class action settlement shows its legislative aspect, dangerously.
10.2.09

lynnchu says larceny is the only way to think about what Google has done. To excuse it, Google must pay up, compete, and use fair author contracts
3:25 PM Oct 5th from web

lynnchu says settlement can only release Google for scanning prior to 1.5.09, not for unlicensed uses, displays, or services or products development
7:32 PM Oct 6th from web

lynnchu says Opt-In is the same as a contract, one that, if endorsed by SDNY and DOJ, had better be good, and trample no rights
7:39 PM Oct 6th from web

lynnchu prefers to contract in a climate of many competitor publishers, caveat emptor, and protected by ordinary consumer and contract law.
7:44 PM Oct 6th from web

lynnchu says the class action vehicle has magnified an individual contract of adhesion between an author and publisher, into mass injustice
10.7.09

lynnchu feels that a book deal pitched as having a federal court's Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, is one helluva misleading sales come-on.
10.8.09

lynnchu says publishers can't amend all authors' book contracts to seize control over digital proceeds, through this Google "settlement" process.
10.9.09

lynnchu says the Google deal is so lousy, precisely because Google extracted a pound of flesh in exchange for letting publishers sandbag authors.
10.9.09

lynnchu says the value of a copyright, and settled expectations about its use, are far more unique than a fiber optic easement down a RR track.
10.9.09

lynnchu notes that the Google Settlement destroys author-friendly common law of contract to elevate publisher-rigged word literalism in §8.4. (NB: I apologize for an earlier misprint of this section number erroneously typed as §6.4. 11/17/09)
10.9.09

lynnchu notes that sadly, the lawyer for the authors was just a class action dude, while the lawyer for the publishers was top notch. Guess who won?
10.9.09

lynnchu says it is a trap to parse bad terms in this. Only an individual chooses what bad terms to live with, in any such deal. This is legislative.
10.10.09

lynnchu notes that institutionalizing a conflict (author-publisher) does nothing to eliminate it, and the transactions costs are much less, not to.
10.10.09

lynnchu says the Registry is a morass of conflicts of interest. And a money laundry, with Ponzi scheme elements.
10.10.09

lynnchu thinks Article 3, limiting courts to a case and controversy, and the limits of Rule 23, determine the Google matter.
10.10.09

lynnchu says the problems everyone has of notice, due process, and informed consent in Google, all arise from using the courts to legislate.
10.10.09

lynnchu says a Registry to adjudicate and rewrite author contracts presents the same due process concerns as military commissions: kangaroo courts.
10.10.09

lynnchu says a 63/37 deal imposed on all rightsowners in America is per se price fixing.
10.10.09

lynnchu says there is no need for a single entity to substitute its uninformed monolithic business judgment for that of individual copyright owners
10.10.09

lynnchu says there is no need for a structural injunction like the Registry to halt a flood of author litigants from suing publishers or Google.
10.14.09

lynnchu says there is no need for a massive structural injunction upon authors for them to license Google rights to display literary works
10.14.09

lynnchu says the Registry is a costly unaccountable entity invented wholly for the benefit of publishers and Google, at the expense of authors
10.14.09

lynnchu says the remedy does not match the complained-of ill. It is a cure for Google and publishers, of the gross inconvenience of authors.
10.14.09

lynnchu says the Google settlement eliminates authors rights to sue it, the Registry, or publishers, for almost everything, including future harms
10.14.09

lynnchu thinks no judge would be so daft as to ratify more than about 1% of the Google settlement. But if so, there's always appeal.
10.14.09

lynnchu thinks the only thing that can settle with Google is their past scans, and the remedy should not be dribs of cash, but public replevin
10.14.09

lynnchu feels a little like bobdole constantly saying what lynnchu thinks.
10.14.09

lynnchu thinks it's hilarious that Google's recent direct mail promo coupon for its AdWords program is $100, more than the $60 they will pay authors
10.14.09

lynnchu is distraught and feels personally required to invent a Project Innocence to correct the systemic injustice of the class action vehicle.
10.15.09

lynnchu believes that Rule 23, and copyright, expose Google's corrupt trick of using a class action "settlement" vehicle to get its own way
10.15.09

lynnchu is terrified that SDNY institutional memory about the equity due to authors as individuals, in publishing law history, has been lost.
10.15.09

lynnchu says class action objector briefs cannot well explain the structure of equity due to authors, for it is lost historical memory.
10.15.09

lynnchu says no one would ever have sued Google individually over mere scanning, yet Sergey Brin preens in NYT over the brilliance of his larceny.
10.15.09

lynnchu says the value of the scans is billions, yet Google hitches it to a trivial future display rights license that serves only publishers.
10.15.09

lynnchu says Boni "for" the authors was utterly rolled by Cunard for the publishers, and all of this is now buried in cash, and ego investment.
10.15.09

lynnchu says authors cannot get justice here because lawyers can't get paid to "object" and "opt out and sue" is fraught with danger.
10.15.09

lynnchu says it is almost impossible to describe the deeply evil, sleazy manipulation of the legal system that this "class action" entails.
10.15.09

lynnchu says communism failed because of its massive "agency problems" and the class action is subject to much the same tendency to corruption
10.15.09

lynnchu says that subtly folding an extremely valuable property into a "deal" for a not so valuable one, is a standard Hollywood trick.
12:10 PM Oct 17th from web

lynnchu notes that for every perk squeezed from authors by the publisher and library subclasses, Google squeezed double from the authors for itself.
12:15 PM Oct 17th from web

lynnchu says the amusing thing about the §3.8 MFN is that these clauses are fair when contributors impose them on the anthologist, not the reverse.
12:18 PM Oct 17th from web

lynnchu says the Google Settlement Agreement is really a study in black comedy, rather like a snuff film, celebrated as art.
12:21 PM Oct 17th from web

lynnchu worries only that a court might be deceived about the real economics of the Google deal, to overrely on deeply compromised "fiduciaries."
12:34 PM Oct 17th from web

lynnchu says Google is nothing but Gordon Gekko, a la Michael Douglas announcing superciliously that, "Greed Is Good."
12:38 PM Oct 17th from web

lynnchu says it is the responsibility of the courts to counter the power of the publisher cartel's inequity to authors, here masked in class action.
12:55 PM Oct 17th from web

lynnchu reminds that the original sin by Google was its theft of property—which sin remains wholly unvalued, and unrecompensed, in the GBS.
12:58 PM Oct 17th from web

lynnchu says NY courts have a long history of seeing through noneconomic contract legerdemain, of publishers grabbing for unpaid-for rights.
1:05 PM Oct 17th from web

lynnchu notes that Google defines breach out of existence if it's doing it. Only reckess willful misconduct can be arbitrated under strict caps
10.19.09

lynnchu says no sane human would ever sign this gigantic contract of adhesion in the real world. Google just thinks it can trick a judge into it.
10.19.09

lynnchu says disputes over damages Google inflicts in the future, and over the meaning of everyone's book contracts, have zero to do with this suit.
10.19.09

lynnchu says people permit technical infringements such as screenplay writing, and scanning, every day without suing the "infringer."
10.19.09

lynnchu says everyone suing Google at $150K per infringement, as the law provides, is the only way to check brazen class action racketeering
10.19.09

lynnchu says Google thinks the peppercorn theory will allow it to make off with everyone's rights for a song.
10.20.09

lynnchu says Google has cleverly gamed publishers' and libraries' desires into an excuse to triple gang rape authors.
10.20.09

lynnchu says Google's is a cynical bet on litigator, academic and court naivete in matters of business.
10.20.09

lynnchu says Google has taken care to line many pockets.
10.20.09

lynnchu says Google believes the fad for state paternalism will tripwire the Asset into its hands.
10.20.09

lynnchu wonders what you'd sell a blanket waiver of all right to sue, for anything, except in kangaroo court? $1M? $2M? Now x that by 10M books.
10.20.09

lynnchu notes that the beauty of copyright and of the common law is that most people just shrug and permit, if the harm is minor, or even helpful.
10.20.09

lynnchu says there are authors who'll walk if the publisher won't give them enough color jpegs in their jacket approval—and, a court decides this?
10.20.09

lynnchu says commandeering everyone's business affairs is not what courts were set up to do, especially not at the behest of conniving publishers.
10.20.09

lynnchu says yeah, market logic is that anyone can sign any wackbrained mucus hairball he wants, when the damage is limited to himself.
10.20.09

lynnchu says it'd be the heist of the century for a court to "sign" on behalf of all at these venal conspirators' behest. Yet so "innovative"!!!
10.20.09

lynnchu says we haven't seen innovation like this since critical legal studies, and credit default swaps. And look what that got us.
10.20.09

lynnchu says the common law is prior to positive laws like antitrust or securities, and has evolved organically and wisely, not conspiratorially.
10.20.09

lynnchu says even the big shoulders of big government aren't broad enough to rewrite all common law re: everyone's past and future business affairs.
10.20.09

lynnchu notes that the deal with Google is bad because it reflects the costly intrusion of the publisher cartel's agenda to rewrite author contracts
8:49 AM Oct 21st from web

lynnchu notes the hypocrisy of Google suing to defeat another copyright infringement class action by artists, because some of their copyrights are unregistered.
10:25 AM Oct 23rd from web

lynnchu wonders why Google loves the AAP-Guild class action, but doesn't like those other class action plaintiffs—they're not on Google's "team."
10:27 AM Oct 23rd from web

lynnchu notes the hypocrisy of Google loving the individualism inherent in copyright law when it helps Google, but not when it hurts Google.
10:29 AM Oct 23rd from web

lynnchu notes also that book publishers have no right under their contracts to "settle" any infringement claims without individual author approval.
10:30 AM Oct 23rd from web

lynnchu notes that publishers were only entitled to enjoin an infringement, not to grab more digital rights away from authors in any settlement.
10:35 AM Oct 23rd from web

lynnchu notes that authors are the sole owners of the copyrights and must approve individually any settlements for infringements.
10:39 AM Oct 23rd from web

lynnchu says it all goes to show the lack of authority of these litigants in concocting a class action to strip authors of their rights and property
10:44 AM Oct 23rd from web

lynnchu recommends that all authors demand all hit, referrer, viewtime per page and other data about Google uses of their works from publishers
10:50 AM Oct 23rd from web

lynnchu says one of her authors has noticed her entire readership (a college market) now has total "library" access to her in-print book on Google
11:09 AM Oct 23rd from web

lynnchu has posted the simple forms Google OUGHT TO have used to properly license rights from owners, on www.writersreps.com
1:51 PM Oct 26th from web

lynnchu notes that digital search is a use of a work that was not granted to any book publishers, so they cannot license this right to Google.
10.27.09

lynnchu notes that book contracts vary in meaning but mostly, the meaning is quite vague, and hence, subject to author approval. Or disapproval.
10.27.09

lynnchu advises all authors & agents to demand approval to the ungranted and unpaid for value of search rights, in all electronic rights in a work.
10.27.09

lynnchu notes that digital search rights are a facet of author-reserved electronic adaptation and multimedia. Most likely.
10.27.09

lynnchu notes that there is no meeting of the minds between publishers and authors as to any details of new e-publications, which are new products.
10.27.09

lynnchu reminds authors that they are at least equal partners in the book contract with equal rights of control, particularly over new exploitations
10.27.09

lynnchu notes also that "net receipts" is entirely undefined with respect to e-publications and print economics is not digital economics.
10.27.09

lynnchu notes that if a publisher has omitted your out of print or termination clause then your book contract may be unenforceable in its entirety
10.27.09

lynnchu also notes the unenforceability of agreements to agree in self-serving contract verbiage imposed by an overreaching cartel.
10.27.09

lynnchu notes also that all these matters are context-dependent, so consult your attorney before trying these tricks at home.
10.27.09

lynnchu says context-dependent means, if you got a million bucks you can snooze. But if you got just a modest print advance, you'd best pipe up.
10.27.09

lynnchu says, don't rely on your agent to tell you any of this. They may not know, or, may not care. Agents live on fees, not legal abstractions.
10.27.09

lynnchu says, but legal abstractions govern YOUR vital rights and interests in all the future value of your work. So pay attention. Closely.
10.27.09

lynnchu notes that authors should be getting the lion's share of "net" on all e-publications. 75% at least, not vice versa. They're all licenses.
10.27.09

lynnchu thinks if you have a big advance you might do 50% on e-publications for 2 years or until the advance is earned out, renegotiable thereafter.
10.27.09

lynnchu says the problem with a Google contract with all of America is that everyone's business affairs are different, and all terms are relative.
10.27.09

lynnchu figures it is time to teach a man to fish. Even her competitors. Go forth and multiply.
10.27.09

lynnchu wonders if an anthology might sort higher on the Google list and so get more hits than the poet's own volume, cheating the poet and heirs.
10.27.09

lynnchu thinks there has been a rash of anthology requests lately, particularly of a trashy aggregator variety, possibly gaming Google futures.
10.27.09

lynnchu endorses the "Google settlement" she's drafted on writersreps.com, a 3 pg warranty plus set of owner option screens. Default OFF.
10.27.09

lynnchu notes that the Google provisions for "inserts" are especially inane, robbing contributors blind. Apparent rule: always favor the aggregator.
10.27.09

lynnchu warns that loading a 2-way agenda onto a 3-way deal forces the 3rd party to take more out of the passive party than they otherwise would.
10.28.09

lynnchu notes that St. Martin's now wants an 80% commission to broker their lists to e-publishers. Nice work if you can get it.
10.29.09

lynnchu notes also that book publishers' idea of negotiation with e-vendors is to sign on the dotted line. Even better work if you can get it.
10.29.09

lynnchu recalls that book publishers all promised at ebooks' inception that authors' per copy e-royalty would be = hardcover, ie, ~$4 or more.
10.29.09

lynnchu notes that it is a per se breach of fiduciary duty to award oneself a 3-4 to 1 commission from partnership profits, to do and spend nothing.
10.29.09

lynnchu advises authors, one must control rights of long term value now. Excluding all that political and "business" calling card trash.
10.29.09

lynnchu says the real puzzle is how human editorial intelligence is going to defeat Googlebots from eliminating their jobs.
10.29.09

lynnchu's Seinfeld-like aside viz "political and 'business' trash." Uh....not that there's anything wrong with that!
10.29.09

lynnchu notes that the corporate executive game is to pack human intel into a computer (ineptly) then fire everyone and pocket the spread
10.29.09

lynnchu says the now defunct Google Book Settlement displayed not only precisely zero understanding of computers, but zero of Econ 101.
10.29.09

lynnchu says GBS was your basic grab-bag of stupid lawyer tricks. Like, announce a big number ($125M) related logically to nothing—except my fee.
10.29.09

lynnchu wonders if announcing your new ultra low e-rates in a press release is in fact a message to the publisher cartel of Sherman Act dimensions
10.29.09

lynnchu notes that if online is likened to periodical then Beast and PuffHo should be regularly accounting and paying authors 50% on all licenses.
10.29.09

lynnchu suspects the fetishization of secrecy reveals the real triviality of Silicon Valley "ideas," ie, scripts any good plumber could write.
10.29.09

lynnchu reminds authors that the internet, while a marvelous tool, is also nothing but a big, huge spying machine—and haystack. Not "publicity."
10.29.09

lynnchu says, it's all about the data, stupid.
10.29.09

lynnchu is seeking a credible economist to value the world literature Asset (exclusive rights minimum 10 year term) for her, pro bono. PhD preferred
10.29.09

lynnchu says the only class in a case alleging infringement is copyright owners. Publisher vs author "class" agendas are irrelevant.
6:32 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu notes that libraries were not even sued for their part in the infringement so owners may not be compelled to release them.
6:34 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu says the true issue is the creation and exclusive possession of the derivative work of the Asset and all the unpaid for rights it contains
6:58 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu says the other issue is the rise of groups like CCC and ALCS and the Registry attempting to cop squeeze off everyone's rights, unauthorized
6:59 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu says such operations all phish for business with a "we have money for you!" lure after falsely posing as an agent authorized to license
7:05 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu says authors who prefer schools and individuals to use their works without unauthorized squeeze rackets taxing them, are harmed
7:10 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu regards the EU collectivization schemes as misguided. It is wrong to price fix the value of literary works or to centralize negotiations.
8:06 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu warns authors against periodical and web publishers today ditching their duty to account and pay authors on all licenses, traditionally 50%
8:15 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu notes that 50% is no longer valid as it refers to high cost, limited-in-time print publishing. Authorship is far more than licensing.
8:18 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu: Here is a link to the Owner Options Google Ought to have provided:
9:06 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu: Here is a link to 3 beautiful poems by Doug Crase: Replevin. Covenant. Trover:
9:08 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu: Here is a link to Google's own contract, redrafted for fairness to both parties:
9:11 AM Oct 30th from web

lynnchu says, consider the irony. Computer power gives us enormous capacity to accurately disclose and account. Hired guns strive to shut that door.
8:02 AM Oct 31st from web

lynnchu says lawyers often short-shrift accounting, or economics. Their impulses tend toward secrecy rather than (honest) transparency.
8:12 AM Oct 31st from web

lynnchu notes that trust dilutes to less than zero, in a non-individual, non-personal "relationship" like "class representative."
8:14 AM Oct 31st from web

lynnchu notes that the common law recognizes the importance and the critical economic functionality of the individual. They were wiser then.
8:14 AM Oct 31st from web

lynnchu says GBS needs to be seen as a species of entrepreneurship. NGO fiefdom creation, every bit as self-serving as private enterprise.
8:21 AM Oct 31st from web

lynnchu says, when the devil is in the details, marketers and propagandists have free rein to mislead.
8:41 AM Oct 31st from web

lynnchu notes that every lawyer and literary agent (who bothered to look past their own fees), who read the GBS, recoiled with a shudder.
8:47 AM Oct 31st from web

lynnchu thinks in modern times, there has been a mad proliferation of wannabe rulemakers making wannabe laws. This is a jobs program, not "law."
8:49 AM Oct 31st from web

lynnchu thinks the class action vehicle overincentivizes aggregation as commerce, for lawyers.
9:29 AM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu thinks digital is an aggregation toy we all may/should be fairly permitted to, play with
9:31 AM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu says the impersonal formulae, algorithms and aggregation that greed seeks, must be mistrusted. Knowledge is bottom up.
9:43 AM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu says bigness itself must be mistrusted. Vertical integration produces conflicts of interest and is not an unalloyed good.
9:44 AM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu says the agency problem asks, "Whose commerce?"
9:45 AM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu says "orphans" are a faux problem. Authors, their heirs and assigns are always, easily, found. Permissions professionals abound.
10:14 AM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu says Google is lying in saying it's "virtually impossible" to find licensors of works. There are multiple potential licensors of all works.
10:19 AM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu notes that Google's use of the current settlement process was nothing but a solicitation for contact data on all potential wannabe licensors
5:46 PM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu says there is no reason to relieve Google of the costs of the business risks it assumed, with eyes wide open (and jaws).
6:09 PM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu says a literary work is owned only by its author(s). All others derive rights pursuant to contract.
6:13 PM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu says Google knew it would be subject to lawsuits, up to $150K per infringement. Per infringing act. Per right. Each work has many rights.
6:18 PM Nov 2nd from web

lynnchu just got a letter from a lawyer-author irate at having been steered by the Settlement Adminstrator to register, when she meant to opt out.
11:59 AM Nov 12th from web

lynnchu notes that this lawyer-author is livid over a federal court serving as Google's sales division, even pitching its Partner program to her.
12:04 PM Nov 12th from web

lynnchu declares the revised Google settlement to be as illegal as the last. Now it is all up to the judge to throw it all out. How nerveracking.
8:25 AM Nov 14th from web

lynnchu sees a few positive tweaks in it introduced by DOJ. But no cure for the root illegality, the turning upside down of copyright. And Rule 23. 9:20 AM Nov 14th from web

lynnchu is astonished by the bloated nincompoopery masquerading as legal scholarship out there. First the crits. Now law 'n econ.
4:08 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu wonders how publishers can be so dumb as not to see that viewing 20% of a book online, per month (or 40% w/2 computers, etc) will kill sales
6:36 PM Nov 14th from web

lynnchu says law and econ has entered the Alexandrian phase. Revenge of the epigoni.
4:04 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says the failure of competition is entirely from the arrogation of individual rights of contract in GBS. The parties have no authority.
4:14 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says parties in a litigation may contract, if they bind only themselves. Get thee to Congress to bind the nation, Google.
4:18 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says Google needs to negotiate with ME about the value of my search rights. I require extra for that on top of display rights.
7:26 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says Google can't exclusively possess and develop the asset. It is a thief with unclean hands colluding with publishers to rip off authors.
7:32 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu thinks it's amusing that under GBS blogs get full copyright protection while books are rip-offable. Better not publish in print, then.
7:38 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu wonders if GBS is a radical environmentalist plot, irate over the sacrifice of dead trees perpetrated by the book industry.
7:39 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says the entire forward-looking business deal and waivers of rights to sue over those uses is flatly illegal.
7:46 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says the only thing that may settle as an opt out is a waiver of the right to sue Google for its acts of scanning pre 1-05-09 plus
7:49 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu adds, plus its holding with NO USE, and NO DISPLAY on Google's servers, which only the owner may negotiate.
7:51 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says the plaintiffs' plot to form an entity to subordinate owners to their squeeze racket and control the derivative work was deeply corrupt
7:55 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says exclusive possession of the compiled scan asset may only be in the hands of a public agency which only Congress can set up.
7:57 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says NGO entrepreneurship is selfish, self-serving, venal and infringing of others' rights every bit as much as for-profit entrepreneurship
7:58 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says some NGO group ought to sue some world body and subject all NGOs to a massive contract regulating them all by way of settlement.
8:03 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu says she's going to set up such a group and solicit members for it tomorrow.
8:03 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu is suppressing a yawn at the prospect of ruffling through the GBS, rev.ed's redlines and figures the clerks at SDNY can look at it now.
9:51 AM Nov 15th from web

lynnchu thinks authors are obviously better protected without any such nonsense as #GBS being jammed down their collective throats
11:01 AM Nov 15th from web (NB: #GBS is a keyword for "Google Book Settlement" that creates a subject matter screen on Twitter).

lynnchu says a separate Registry fiduciary for orphans is nothing but an additional bureaucratic cost, loaded upon owners. It solves nothing.
11.16.09

lynnchu says the #GBS apparatus wrongly overrides common law fiduciary duties owed to owners and their rights to sue Google and the Registry.
11.16.09

lynnchu says no transactions costs are alleviated by a Registry. Costs are only enormously amplified by it, and cast from Google, onto owners. #GBS
11.16.09

lynnchu says a Registry only invents another bogus, and costly, licensor on behalf of the owner, with no actual authority from that owner. #GBS
11.16.09

lynnchu says all the talk of orphans is propaganda, to frame the discussion as Google's right to found property "abandoned" by owners. #GBS
11.16.09

lynnchu says #GBS is simply a plot to legislate copyright law out of existence for Google, eagerly colluded in by power-hungry, unrepresentative plaintiffs
11.16.09

lynnchu says the one-size-fits-all contract of #GBS only entrenches terms which relate to no individual, into all-powerful market dominance forever.
11.16.09

lynnchu says the whole point of the one-size-fits-all #GBS contract is to free Google from all corporate responsibility to individual copyright owners.
11.16.09

lynnchu says since Google stole and compiled the scans, it owes all individuals duties under copyright law, as to all rights in all works. Not the plaintiffs. #GBS
11.16.09

lynnchu says the plaintiffs' interest in Registry creation is purely an interest in commandeering everyone else's rights without their consent. #GBS
11.16.09

lynnchu says publishing law and the common law give owners vastly more rights than #GBS, which confiscates, and muddles, those rights.
11.16.09

lynnchu says which agent, on what terms, may control which business affairs of that individual, is up to that individual, not up to a court. #GBS
11.16.09

lynnchu thinks there should be no Noerr Pennington immunities when Google failed to petition Congress, just sought to buy off the plaintiffs. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu thus thinks the waiver of antitrust immunity is worthless. Google just assumes this administration is in its pocket. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says there is no issue re: book pricing if only owners control price and not any unauthorized Registry. #GBS @randypicker
11.17.09

lynnchu says the idea of another stand-in agent for orphans is wrong—an orphan class rep had been proposed to negotiate the terms of the #GBS itself
11.17.09

lynnchu says the ONLY entity that may exclusively possess and control the scans Google stole, without owner authority, is the government. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu notes that it was atty Charles Chalmers who first suggested a "guardian ad litem" for orphans, but to negotiate the #GBS against the parties
11.17.09

lynnchu says only owners who warrant and indemnify ownership by individual contract may license their works—to their choice of publisher. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says Authors Guild was rolled by the AAP attorney and indeed considered Cunard to be working for them. I have this in email. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says this whole action is an out of control, improper use of the class action that is barred by Rule 23's respect for individual rights #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says the antitrust issues are all created by the aggregation effect of the class action. #GBS @randypicker
11.17.09

lynnchu says the class action over-incentivizes trial atty aggregators. Google could've easily fought or settled solo suits to clarify the law #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says no class action burdens and binds a class. It only benefits a class. This seeks to commission the class unlimitedly forever. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says the proper scope of the settlement must be to pre-1/5/09 acts of scanning only, with no central control of rights licensing. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says multiple future infringements of multiple rights in multiple works cannot be waived on all owners in America by a court. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says individuals exercising their own right to contract or sue is far preferable to any court forcing a malstructured regime on them #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says the common law plus no contract is a far better, fairer world than some blithering monstrosity filled with unintended consequences #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says #GBS exposes the mad belief of wheel-spinning regulators that law is a mountain of words
11.17.09

lynnchu says the only remedy for Google's larceny of digital property is replevin of the derivative work and public licensing to all publishers #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says the evil of theft, and the fair play of free competition, stand prior to all man-made regulatory wordplay #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu feels that all attorney's fees in this must be radically reduced, sanctioning them for 4 years of concerted, bloviating self-serving. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu notes that #GBS (rev. ed.) destroys author-friendly common law of contract to elevate publisher-rigged word literalism in §8.4 and §1.73 (A re-post adding correct section numbers and referencing GBS, rev. ed.)
11.17.09

lynnchu notes that one vital right of the individual is the right to choose NOT to sue an "infringer." This right is destroyed by class action. #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu says many types of aggregators with no authority are now rising up to improperly insert themselves as author "representatives." #GBS
11.17.09

lynnchu @adamhodgkin Yes. Blithering monstrosity. Nothing about it is legal. If you kill individual contract, you kill the market.
7:03 PM Nov 18th from web in reply to adamhodgkin

lynnchu @adamhodgkin Put it another way. You don't substitute perfect simplicity favoring authors, with costly complexity they pay for. #GBS
7:35 PM Nov 18th from web

lynnchu #GBS. Contract nerds need to focus much more on matters like the brand-new standards of contract construction set in, eg., §8.4 and §1.73
10:06 AM Nov 19th from web

lynnchu #GBS. The forced arbitration of the book contract imposed here is the grossly rights trampling part, stripping contract law from the courts.
10:12 AM Nov 19th from web

lynnchu notes that control over ALL contract terms is critical to consent—rates being intimately related. #GBS
7:34 AM Nov 20th from web

lynnchu notes that the liability caps on Google on all future damage to authors are going to be worth squat after (the coming) inflation hits. #GBS
8:35 AM Nov 20th from web

lynnchu expects blithering monstrosities to come at her from only one quarter—Congress. Everyone else she has the inviolable right to ignore. #GBS
8:37 AM Nov 20th from web

lynnchu notes that authors who prefer freer availability of their works are obstructed by rent-seeking publishers whose interests prevail in #GBS
9:14 AM Nov 20th from web

lynnchu says it is the business models of publishers which need the creative destruction wrought by the new technological reality—not creators. #GBS
9:19 AM Nov 20th from web

lynnchu says reading #GBS is about the same exercise in futility as reading D-grade historicist lit crit or law crit scholarly articles of the 80s.
9:36 AM Nov 20th from web

lynnchu says creators ought to reap the benefits of advances in technology, not be obstructed by the legal gambits of rentseekers. #GBS
10:27 AM Nov 20th from web
12.1.09

lynnchu notes that #GBS thumbs its nose at Tasini's holding that contributors own their own rights—not collective work owners, given 80% by GBS.
9:44 AM Nov 27th from web
12.1.09

lynnchu notes the irony of Author's Guild's lead plaintiff in Tasini being Jacques Barzun, who is now plaintiff in the Bloom objector group to #GBS.
9:51 AM Nov 27th from web
12.1.09

lynnchu notes that Google eliminates the negligence standard—it cannot be in breach unless its misconduct is reckless, willful or intentional. #GBS
12.1.09

lynnchu notes that even if Google is reckless, willful & intentional, there is no breach if it corrects or cures "when identified." #GBS §1.73
12.1.09

lynnchu wonders if a federal court cares to sign a contract of adhesion binding everyone, that erases its own jurisdiction over contract fairness
12.2.09

lynnchu says the operative principles Google in collusion with publishers wishes to erase, are the equitable rules of the common law itself.
12.2.09

lynnchu doubts that the Authors' Guild, or their class action hucksters, have the slightest capacity to comprehend the law OR econ of the settlement
12.2.09

lynnchu says it should be elementary that courts do not "do deals" for the nation. This "transformation" is deconstructivist silliness no one needs.
12.2.09

lynnchu says Kelo, and No Child Left Behind, show the devastation to be wrought when even legislatures try to "do deals" for everyone.
12.2.09

lynnchu notes the mad legalese that intrudes whenever Google has a (rare) duty: §13.6(b)(i) is either 2 lists, or 1 filtered by two conditions.
4:38 PM Dec 7th from web

lynnchu says that since Google has now persuaded the plaintiffs that scanning is a good, it is their duty to drop the suit, not seek a satrapy.
5:36 PM Dec 7th from web

lynnchu notes that §6.3(b) says public domain book revenues will be split among registrants—nothing to orphans.
12:18 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes that §6.3(b) also creates incentives for fraudsters to stake claims on books in the public domain.
12:22 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu: §6.7 gives the Registry the power to sign everyone's contracts and sell their rights, but Google can veto, if any claimant so directs.
1:06 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu: the Registry must annually report to Google, be audited by Google, and give all data to Google, but it gets only limited data from Google.
1:32 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes that the Registry may not inquire about other Google exploitations of rights, nor about net off-the-tops. §6.6(a)(ii), (iii), (v).
1:38 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes that Google's list of scanned works is to be kept secret, but the Registry must make its registrant list public. §6.6.a.ii, 6.6.d.
1:55 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes that citation data can be withheld in lists owed to the Registry, if made confidential, or a 3rd party wants to license it. §6.6.a.ii
2:00 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says that, fatal to #GBS, is its commingling of a publishing license and the waivers of all rights to sue of a litigation settlement.
6:31 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes, no publishing license waives all rights to sue for breach, torts, fraud etc. This just assumes a Court will rubberstamp uncaringly.
6:37 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says, in essence, the Registry is a faux author agent with all fiduciary duties to authors eliminated, replaced by all duties owed to Google
7:00 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes that the antitrust sin is the Registry's "representation" of all authors in one single 1-size-fits-all deal with a monopsonist-thief.
7:03 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says it's a toss up whether the #GBS is collusive, or grossly incompetent. Probably both. Attorneys fees should be reduced to zero.
7:41 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes that the monopsonist needs to recompense society in some way for its conscious thievery—I suggest it share the scans with competitors.
7:42 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says, doing deals is necessarily an individual matter, which creates the free market, and information exchanges that help all, on average.
7:46 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says antitrust lawyers who analyze from effects, and rules, and precedents, and statutory wordplay, put the cart before the horse.
7:47 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes that Richard Epstein teaches the elegance of Ockham's Razor and the wisdom of simple rules that common law judges once understood.
7:49 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes that a thief has no business dictating terms of "private law," i.e., contract, for it to use stolen property in the future. #GBS
7:53 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says #GBS's Registry has no function other than to money launder Google's absent accounting to owners and cream bucks off the top.
7:56 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says that the Registry is a publisher invention to force authors to arbitrate digital control under new rules deleting common law contract.
8:00 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says the analities of #GBS are a snowscreen, to defraud and mislead not only the public, but a federal court. The action is in its omissions
8:04 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu reflects that nearly no owner has any meeting of the mind with any print book publisher about any electronic product's exploitation. #GBS
8:28 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu thinks too many non-IP lawyers seem to think "electronic rights" is a clear, given unity, not a yet-to-be-determined bundle of rights. #GBS
8:31 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu wonders how Authors' Guild managed to forget that Tasini debunked the unity theory of copyright. Going with the flow to the fiefdom I guess.
8:44 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu notes that scanning is one act of infringement, display another, and use in other products and services another. Search, yet another.
9:18 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says the #GBS plaintiffs sued to claim scanning was not fair use, attempting to monetize that which copyright expects most owners not to.
9:33 PM Dec 8th from web

lynnchu says the discretion of owners who decide not to care, much less sue, if Google scans their works is key to the operation of copyright. #GBS
2:21 AM Dec 9th from web

lynnchu says the plot to aggregate, thus confiscate, individuals' discretion over their own business affairs is #GBS's sinister twistedness.
2:26 AM Dec 9th from web

lynnchu says there is no call for litigation settlement global waivers and releases to apply to all owner-Google business relations whatsoever. #GBS
6:18 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu says the sick inane trick by Google and its wannabe business partner the plaintiffs, is to confuse litigation with business contracting #GBS
6:21 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu says the other sick inane trick is to sink everything into an unreadable hairball of obfuscatory nonsense. Classic lawyer gambit. #GBS
6:22 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu says the all claims in the universe ever against everyone for anything naturally includes breach of fiduciary duty by the plaintiffs. #GBS
6:25 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu notes that the fraud of #GBS is all sunk in Arts. 8, 10, and §13.7 married to this crap deal, which respects and reserves no owner rights
6:31 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu notes that Google's claims department is appointed nonterminable owner agent with no fiduciary or accounting duties, and no recourse. #GBS
6:35 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu thinks back to the complaint. About scanning. Act of infringement? Or fair use? So now, who cares? Your suit is done, plaintiffs. #GBS
6:42 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu notes the self-dealing and grinning incompetence of the plaintiffs and their attorneys in #GBS approximates the Bernie Madoff level.
6:47 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu says Google can outsource its contracts and claims department to anyone it wants, but not ask a court to make it the world's agent. #GBS
6:55 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu notes that #GBS is nothing but a special purpose entity fraudulently masquerading as a litigation settlement.
6:58 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu notes that DOJ's non-corporate types miss the gigantic conflict of interest and ditching of all law and individual rights of the "Registry."
7:06 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu says litigation claims are about specific acts, harms, and assessed damages for those specified harms. Not about "dealmaking."
7:10 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu says dealmaking (and choice of agent) is for an individual to do himself, based on his own unique assessment of his personal interest. #GBS
7:16 AM Dec 10th from web

lynnchu notes that Markus Dohle touts Random House's own CAPITAL investment in electronic as if this justifies a low PROFIT share for the author.
2:56 PM Dec 11th from web

lynnchu notes that the capital cost of the publishing company is its sole responsibility—and its contribution to the book publishing partnership
3:08 PM Dec 11th from web

lynnchu notes also that the author's share of the book publishing partnership is never less than 50%. The author's contribution is to create it.
3:09 PM Dec 11th from web

lynnchu notes further that long term, the publisher's relative share of the book publishing partnership massively diminishes, to collecting rents.
3:09 PM Dec 11th from web

lynnchu warns authors and agents that protestations of publishers about their massive overhead is irrelevant to what the author's share should be.
3:13 PM Dec 11th from web

lynnchu notes that the fair market value of a bulk (e)license is not even that of a licensing commission, where individual effort is made to sell.
3:16 PM Dec 11th from web

lynnchu thinks when a publisher says they're spending a lot of money on overhead the agent should reply, you should cut the fat out and pay us more.
3:29 PM Dec 11th from web

lynnchu says, the deal in all book publishing is, the publisher pays all costs of doing the publishing out of its 50% share. The author creates.
3:34 PM Dec 11th from web

lynnchu says, the publisher is not entitled to make the author pay the costs of publishing by making him take a back end "net."
3:35 PM Dec 11th from web

lynnchu says publishers must disclose and cap all amounts netted off the top of each new form of publication and pay the author per copy of it sold.
6:56 AM Dec 12th from web

lynnchu notes that if Google gives any data to the Registry, the right to charge it and owners to use libraries' catalog data is strictly reserved.
7:53 AM Dec 13th from web

lynnchu says the class action forms a constructive cartel to resolve limited litigated acts, not to impose a vast forward-looking private-law regime
7:55 AM Dec 13th from web

lynnchu says all publishers conspiring with Google under mantle of this lawsuit/faux settlement, in itself is an antitrust violation.
2:34 PM Dec 13th from web

lynnchu notes the antitrust conspiracy GBS created divided Google's owner market into two—10% vs. 20% display owners. This is price discrimination.
9:07 AM Dec 15th from web

lynnchu notes that the Google lawsuit organized publishers into a cartel in which the publishers could pursue their agenda against authors.
9:11 AM Dec 15th from web

lynnchu notes that the lawsuit against Google produces artificial monopoly and monopsony conditions. No "deal" can emerge from this.
9:11 AM Dec 15th from web

lynnchu thinks "deal" is not the right way to think about "law."
12.17.09

lynnchu advises all authors to log onto googlebooksettlement.com and OPT OUT by the new 1/28/10 deadline.
9:15 PM Dec 21st, 2009 from web

lynnchu notes that #GBS §7.1 says the Registry can enforce its owner monopoly by vetoing which libraries Google can deal with.
10:17 AM Dec 30th, 2009 from web

lynnchu notes that #GBS §1.123 commands the Registry to sign all researchers to Google's same deal, in any licenses. Yet more restraint of trade.
4:04 PM Dec 30th, 2009 from web

lynnchu says #GBS §7.2(c)(ii) requires libraries to report to the Registry all who read anything from the scan set. Police state micromanagement.
8:38 AM Dec 31st, 2009 from web

lynnchu says copyright law is a system of individual freedom. It is only the individual owner's choice to regulate by private law, or sue.
8:41 AM Dec 31st, 2009 from web

lynnchu is aghast at #GBS §7.2 (d) (i-xiii)'s fascist-state petit-bureaucrat micromanagement of all who use the data scans—criminalizing fair use.
1:59 PM Dec 31st, 2009 from web

lynnchu says Google absorbed all USGS data into Google Earth for free. By contrast, #GBS seeks to quarantine the scans. Pure deadweight social loss.
2:32 PM Dec 31st, 2009 from web

lynnchu says #GBS 7.2.d.ix says © infringers who use library scans are immune from suit for profits—and enjoinable only IF they "compete" with you.
10:46 AM Jan 1st from web

lynnchu notes that all this pseudo-legislation is a violation of copyright and probably unenforceable—but, to be safe, owners had best opt out.
10:49 AM Jan 1st from web

lynnchu says e-vendors like Google are just retailers, who must pay the publisher's stated wholesale price per inventory item, and fully account.
8:47 AM Jan 2nd from web

lynnchu notes that the entire basis of the Google Book Settlement is wrong. The plaintiffs are not the business partners of the class.
8:47 AM Jan 2nd from web

lynnchu says out of work writers now can go forth and offer to write libraries' Security Implementation Plans per #GBS Attachment D compliance.
10:30 AM Jan 2nd from web

lynnchu notes that the whole costly security scheme is useless against hacking, and all costed to owners because Google is capped. #GBS Art 8 (c.2)
1:18 PM Jan 2nd from web

lynnchu thinks it curious that Google should have the right to eliminate up to 15% of a library's collection from its digital copy.
12:18 PM Jan 3rd from web

lynnchu regards all of Art. 7 and Attachment D as useless bureaucracy whose sole function is to alert Google to its competition, costed to owners.
7:05 PM Jan 6th from web

lynnchu notes that the costly bureaucracy imposed on libraries to spy on Google's competition is "shared," except, Google's share is tightly capped.
7:06 PM Jan 6th from web

lynnchu says Google has used its monopoly power to force the whole book industry into 2 non-negotiable cram-down licenses: 10% vs. 20% displays.
7:32 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu says the condition for the creation of the Google monopoly was the all-industry theft added to the "all-owner" class action litigation. #GBS
7:37 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes book publishers now turning to cheating authors with cram-down digital terms, in breach of all their fiduciary duties to authors.
7:41 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes that a net receipts deal is a partnership for digital, and Google itself a publisher who owes fiduciary duties to all downstream #GBS
7:45 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes that a litigation negotiating table is no kind of a location for a free market deal to take place. It's individual. Not mass. #GBS
7:50 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes that a litigation settlement agreement is a special kind of contract limited to specific conditions of litigation—not a "deal." #GBS
7:52 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu says, property means, informed disclosure is required for any transfer of control that results in profitable gain to the recipient #GBS
8:10 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes that the #GBS is all about masking all disclosure from Google about profitable exploitation from its true, individual, owners.
8:11 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu: #GBS is nothing but legal gobbledygook to mask property theft and conversion, rigged up to exploit the inherent agency problem of courts
8:17 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes that the simple rules of common law handle "transformation" with one hand tied around its back. Unbeknowst to nitwit academics. #GBS
8:19 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes that nitwit academics ignore common law principles when they are too busy trying, entrepreneurially, to forge "new disciplines." #GBS
8:20 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes that "law and economics" has fallen prey to the sins of deconstruction. Like all fads. #GBS.
8:21 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu: the economic value of Google's "service" is payback on a $10 scan. Not a forced license and despotic rewrite of all book contracts. #GBS
8:34 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes that infringement suits require full accounting for ALL exploitation, as do all individually negotiated publishing contracts. #GBS
8:37 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu notes that a courtroom's adversarialism and bargain is a metaphor. It is not a free market deal. Nor, ipso facto, just. #GBS
9:06 AM Jan 7th from web

lynnchu says the "hive mind" requires the individual.
3:10 AM Jan 27th from web

lynnchu has filed.
5:24 PM Jan 28th from web

lynnchu notes that authors can easily claim to be publishers in the digital future. Class status is irrelevant, divisive, and unworkable.
2:51 PM Feb 9th from web

lynnchu notes that the Google Book Settlement attorneys filed their outlandish fee requests today for their predation on all authordom.
1:24 PM Feb 12th from web

lynnchu notes that every subrights licensee is attempting to cheat the unwary by "granting" themselves rights to license for a 50-95% commission now
1:28 PM Feb 12th from web

lynnchu notes that every single Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is about nothing BUT fairness in every detail to individual rights and interests.
1:31 PM Feb 12th from web

lynnchu has been reading Emanuel's on Civil Procedure with keenest interest for the first time since her bar exam 27 years ago.
1:32 PM Feb 12th from web

lynnchu thinks academics who give a poop about artists who have to make a living from their works, all because they have a sinecure, are a menace.
1:35 PM Feb 12th from web

lynnchu thinks Google's publishing operations would be much more nimble and profitable not boxed into the morass of #GBS.
2.20.10

lynnchu delivered her verbal objection to the SDNY Thursday (partly). Full text at: http://www.writersreps.com/feature.aspx?FeatureID=171
2.20.10

lynnchu says the Firefighters case settling a Title 7 action authorizes the #GBS plaintiffs' copyright (and future tort claim) heist not one whit.
1:30 AM Feb 21st via web

lynnchu says Firefighters' decree did "not bind..imposes no legal duties or obligations..or resolve any other claims" of law or contract. This does.
11:44 AM Feb 21st via web

lynnchu notes that to give libraries copies of scans multiplies the hacking risk. To authorize it is gross negligence and proof of incompetence.
11:57 AM Feb 21st via web

lynnchu reflects sadly that #GBS is a recap of inane trade groups lobbying Congress to write horrible new "law" in service only of themselves.
12:18 PM Feb 21st via web

lynnchu notes most old book contracts don't cover new e-products. There is no meeting of the minds on terms of unknown future publications.
1:01 PM Feb 21st via web

lynnchu reminds authors that e-books aren't books at all, but an entirely different product with a relatively cost-free economics.
1:20 PM Feb 21st via web

lynnchu also reminds authors that e-book downloads are wholly different from online access, and search rights are a separate "right," too.
1:22 PM Feb 21st via web

lynnchu: in defense of Pam Samuelson, owners who want to grant uses for free still require control—and the right not to have terms imposed on them.
4:34 PM Feb 21st via web

lynnchu notes that forced monetization and payment for rights the owner prefers to grant for free is a tax on users the owner does not want.
4:36 PM Feb 21st via web

lynnchu says a consent degree in furtherance of Title 7's mandate is not equivalent to confiscation of rights and claims per a mere procedural Rule.
8:10 AM Feb 22nd via web

lynnchu warns authors against publishers cheating them by rewriting contracts to eliminate 50/50 licensing by pretending it is "publishing."
2:09 PM Feb 24th via web

lynnchu warns that Oxford and Penguin are particular offenders, Oxford having recently rewritten its form to turn it into an adhesion contract.
2:12 PM Feb 24th via web

lynnchu notes of course that, you can sign anything you want if you have stars in your eyes, blind faith, or bucks in hand. The last is preferable
3:20 PM Feb 24th via web

lynnchu says "complex" is often lawyerspeak for "piece of sh*t."
4:09 PM Feb 24th via web

lynnchu adds that "complex" is academic lawyerspeak for "way cool." You do the math.
4:16 PM Feb 24th via web

lynnchu thinks that what really wants to be free is code. Not copyrights. But Google can't have THAT.
7:26 AM Mar 1st via web

lynnchu wonders if the Google litigants will now want to go back and add in the unregistered to the registered copyright owner class.
1:40 PM Mar 2nd via web

lynnchu reflects that class actions are privatized prosecutions. They are thus subject to the limits of the "fine" to curb bad corporate behavior.
9:02 AM Mar 3rd via web

lynnchu wonders if conferring ownership of all world literature pre-2009 online, on Google alone, is an inverse bill of attainder. #GBS
1:00 PM Mar 23rd via web

lynnchu: Inconsistency, lack of notice, opacity, retroactivity, contradictions, impossibility, rule instability, branch conflict. #GBS does it all.
1:02 PM Mar 25th via web

lynnchu thinks journals, periodicals, and textbooks should be put online too if books are—there is no rational distinction among these categories
9:15 AM Mar 26th via web

lynnchu notes that a bargain made by an owner can be unique and irrational, but law may not be.
9:16 AM Mar 26th via web

lynnchu thinks the "bargain" metaphor of class action is misplaced and there is no market integrity to the "deal" in the Google #GBS situation.
8:57 AM Mar 27th via web

lynnchu sez #GBS is a train wreck of misplaced metaphors trying to liken litigation to a free market "deal" when it is not.
9:02 AM Mar 27th via web

lynnchu says an unintended consequence of class action is to overly fixate lawyer interest on aggregation racketeering, at social justice's expense
9:09 AM Mar 27th via web

lynnchu notes that all firms are aggregation racketeers. Individual informed consent is a feedback switch—a "deal"—firms may not short circuit.
9:26 AM Mar 27th via web

lynnchu thinks electrical engineers might see the dynamics of law as system better than lawyers steeped in their crooked motives and metaphors
9:34 AM Mar 27th via web

lynnchu notes that Google is distributing scan sets to libraries precisely so that a hacking event can never be traced to it in the future.
Thu Apr 1 10:01:20 2010 via web

lynnchu says the financial crisis arose from disregard of Frank Knight's distinction between risk and uncertainty, in inventing "new" securities.
Wed Apr 7 08:58:52 2010 via web

lynnchu says #GBS is a similar arbitrage scheme seeking to aggregate away the individual bargain, its purgative caveat emptor, and consent.
Wed Apr 7 09:03:08 2010 via web

lynnchu: Business is aggregation. Aggregation can be used to obfuscate. Like the glossy generalization. Compartmentalization destroys oversight.
Wed Apr 7 11:06:47 2010 via web

lynnchu warns that a Google monopoly over everyone's data and ideas may be a totalitarianism worse than any before imagined in history. #GBS
Thu Apr 8 11:15:26 2010 via web

lynnchu suspects that Google well knows that China's use of the net to manipulate their people just competes with its own power. Flight a PR stunt?
Thu Apr 8 11:29:45 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks the power of the algorithm to deliver truths will never compete with the power of the human mind to write in words.
Thu Apr 8 11:32:03 2010 via web

lynnchu is amused at those who mistake Fama's efficient market hypothesis for a "beat the market" system, and so think the crash discredited it.
Thu Apr 8 13:03:44 2010 via web

lynnchu warns of Audible. Their contracts are in fact exclusive 70% commission agency appointments, deleting owner data, control and fiduciary duty.
Fri Apr 9 07:44:07 2010 via web

lynnchu notes also the ubiquity of the confidentiality clause in e-vendors' efforts to cloak the fraud and overreach in these contracts.
Fri Apr 9 07:54:04 2010 via web

lynnchu says publishers and vendors may not morph themselves into agents while dropping all fiduciary duty to creator-consumers.
Fri Apr 9 08:13:08 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that vendor contracts are best non-exclusive, with a fixed minimum wholesale price of $3-5, or more if you like. It's your book.
Fri Apr 9 08:24:57 2010 via web

lynnchu recalls that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws. Not "law" in favor of one company, like Google. #GBS
Fri Apr 16 14:32:34 2010 via web

lynnchu says Silicon Valley confidentiality is a tactic that will backfire on book publishers who try to elbow authors and agents aside. #GBS
Fri Apr 16 15:17:21 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks if publishers are abdicating publishing authority to Silicon Valley, then they are no longer publishers but agents (and fiduciaries).
Tue Apr 20 09:46:48 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that today, businesses seek to imitate the hedge fund by mass aggregating. But volume that seeks to erase fiduciary duty is unlawful.
Tue Apr 20 09:49:31 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that aggregation isn't even good business strategy for business types whose edge depends on quality, not quantity.
Tue Apr 20 09:52:35 2010 via web
  
lynnchu notes that publishers have long known that volume and diversification is no cure for absence of quality. Quants need humanist insight.
Tue Apr 20 09:57:35 2010 via web

lynnchu warns that publishers are attempting to degrade the per copy ebook royalty to $1 from what should be $4 a copy in the first year of sale.
Tue Apr 20 21:44:20 2010 via web

lynnchu says silicon valley is dictating simultaneous ebook publication, so as to free ride publisher launch costs and cannibalize from print.
Tue Apr 20 22:06:38 2010 via web

lynnchu notes the utter irrationality of so much as 30% or more to wholly passive e-vendors. They read, sell, and promote nothing.
Tue Apr 20 22:11:36 2010 via web

lynnchu wonders if book publishers are angling to sell out to silicon valley. For them, golden parachutes. For authors, unnegotiated back end "net"
Tue Apr 20 22:18:48 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that the curious economics and terms of any new publication must be sought only with the advice of competent business counsel
Wed Apr 21 07:51:20 2010 via web

lynnchu says the crash shows the continuing relevance of fiduciary duty: transparency, disclosure and structural bars to conflicts of interest.
Wed Apr 21 07:55:08 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that in database lingo, changing the law of copyright is a many to many situation requiring the join table of Congress. #GBS
Mon Apr 26 11:35:48 2010 via web

lynnchu says for a court to say 37% of all first proceeds of publication online is "fair" to the publisher, would be a market manipulation. #GBS
Mon Apr 26 12:46:58 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks we are witnessing a loss of confidence in human vs. quant intelligence. Ironic, considering the (predictable) quant induced crash.
Thu May 6 10:07:22 2010 via web
  
lynnchu thinks quant intelligence is no better today than in the day of the best and the brightest, which brought us McNamara's Vietnam.
Thu May 6 10:09:25 2010 via web

lynnchu says the way the world works is obvious. The world can be presumed totally irrational until it is, by force or acquiescence, rationalized.
Tue May 11 10:49:50 2010 via web

lynnchu says those drawn to "total solutions" favor force; democracies, acquiescence. Custom is a guide, but can mislead in times of change.
Tue May 11 10:53:03 2010 via web

lynnchu says, all that yields a short term cash return (like a litigation) does not equal "the good." Law must be grounded on ethical good. #GBS.
Sun May 16 11:48:24 2010 via web
  
lynnchu thinks subprime can be seen in fact as an enterprise the banks were all selling infinite shares of, fraudulently, at par.
Tue May 18 10:12:38 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks hedge funds are the solution, not the problem. To regulate just for the sake of regulation, is demagogic.
Tue May 18 10:16:45 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that regulation can be good. But it breeds complacency that is dangerous in a time of innovation. We see as through a glass darkly.
Tue May 18 10:19:34 2010 via web

lynnchu : Paul Feyerabend: There are no general solutions. An increased liberalism in the definition of 'fact' can have grave repercussions.
Thu May 20 08:55:36 2010 via web

lynnchu : ...truth is concealed and even perverted by the processes that are meant to establish it.
Thu May 20 08:57:55 2010 via web
  
lynnchu warns authors and agents that publishers are attempting to erase 50/50 on electronic permissions, to cop the lion's share of that.
Wed May 26 08:40:47 2010 via web

lynnchu warns authors and agents that all approval, audit and accounting clauses require bulking up. Hide the ball is now one publisher game.
Wed May 26 08:41:57 2010 via web

lynnchu reminds all authors of every publisher's (and agent's) fiduciary duty to them in law as their partner in the publication of any work.
Wed May 26 08:53:35 2010 via web

lynnchu reminds authors that the financial crisis is a powerful reminder of the tower of fraud that can be built on false claims of "innovation."
Wed May 26 08:58:46 2010 via web

lynnchu reminds that in a time of "innovation" caveat emptor must be redoubled, because others will seek to exploit their relative ignorance.
Wed May 26 09:00:49 2010 via web

lynnchu warns academic authors whose works have long term value that they especially are being raped in the new terms put into publishing contracts
Wed May 26 09:07:51 2010 via web

lynnchu reminds authors and agents that a publishing contract is one to publish specified items. Not a vast power of attorney to license rights.
Wed May 26 09:32:24 2010 via web

lynnchu wonders if the destruction of the media, and its existing ethical structure, such as copyright, is rich banking's master plan for us too.
Wed May 26 10:12:17 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that monopolies in theory have maximum efficiency—that of totalitarianism. This is why democracy protects individuals.
Wed May 26 10:13:25 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that the "inefficient" transactions costs of caveat emptor, individual privacy and autonomy, and the rule of law, guard human liberty.
Wed May 26 10:15:45 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks Wall St's fantasy virtual reality clone-a-bank world has boosted Washington's fantasy virtual reality deficits-don't-matter world.
Wed May 26 17:01:15 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that most "government regulation" of industries is a mirage. Inculcating complacency. (It's sometimes better than nothing, though.)
Fri May 28 08:38:52 2010 via web

lynnchu wonders why Google can't claim 30% of all website revenues its search engine locates, if the book settlement "deal" is valid. #GBS
Sun May 30 09:31:21 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks class action racketeers and Wall St. bankers mistake their own venality for "innovation" and "creativity."
Sun May 30 09:39:18 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that con artists are often "creative" and "innovative." Foucault and Derrida celebrated their cons. Law usually doesn't.
Sun May 30 09:45:17 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks adversarialism that devolves into sophistry, especially meta-sophistry, is the bane of Law.
Sun May 30 09:47:01 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that the Google Book Settlement is a vast liability cap, just like BP's. #GBS
Thu Jun 3 18:38:57 2010 via web

lynnchu notes BP has "externalized"—spun off—the costs of destruction of the Gulf. Similarly, #GBS externalizes publishing costs, to rights owners.
Sun Jun 6 08:01:46 2010 via web

lynnchu says Congress's "contract" with BP says BP's liability is limited. That means we assume all costs of all evil they do. Same deal w/ Google.
Sun Jun 6 08:07:06 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that Congress is routinely bought and stupid. Business affairs are not what the Constitution says Congress is to do. It makes "law."
Sun Jun 6 08:10:18 2010 via web

lynnchu says the entire drift of modern times has converted law into something it is not. An indecent game so complex only the Satanic can win.
Sun Jun 6 08:15:01 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that FDR built the New Deal state first as a military machine that would equal Nazi Germany. Its fascist elements need dismantling.
Sun Jun 6 08:16:45 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks bureaucratic administrative structures have limits in competency. Foresight, character and wisdom are individual attributes.
Sun Jun 6 08:38:24 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks "corporate synergies" of the past 30 years were largely a con, a dog and pony to justify the formation of cartels and monopolies.
Sun Jun 6 08:45:51 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that under abstract economic theory monopoly is the "most efficient" structure. "Efficiency" is not the prime value in a real world.
Sun Jun 6 08:55:41 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that competition is a social value often of higher value than mere efficiency. Only fair competition permits accurate pricing.
Sun Jun 6 09:01:35 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that copyright law has always moved to eliminate proceduralisms and bureaucracies, not to impose empty "registration" chores. #GBS
Sun Jun 13 07:09:47 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that lawsuits are for legitimate dispute resolutions. Not for social engineering. Trade groups litigate for their own fame and profit.
Sun Jun 13 07:38:55 2010 via web

lynnchu is sympathetic to the anti-corporate sensibility when agency self-interest tramples the rights, autonomy, and discretion of individuals.
Sun Jun 13 07:42:52 2010 via web
  
lynnchu is not sympathetic to the anti-corporate sensibility when agency self-interest is simply assumed, and corporations demonized per se.
Sun Jun 13 07:44:13 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that not-for-profits are often more self-serving than for-profits, their fights being nastier precisely because the stakes are so low.
Sun Jun 13 07:52:21 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks there is no cause for any entity to be formed to "represent" both authors and publishers. These groups' interests only conflict. #GBS
Sun Jun 13 08:46:37 2010 via web

lynnchu says the Registry is a device to entify the #GBS plaintiffs group, cop half of everyone's money, and commodify future © dispute resolution.
Sun Jun 13 08:55:19 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that the Registry is a corporate reorgs shell game to reify and permanently perpetuate the power locus of the #GBS litigation.
Sun Jun 13 08:57:16 2010 via web

lynnchu regards the crisis of democratic capitalism as the rise of sophisticated venal oligarchs engaged in "creative" manipulations of law.
Sun Jun 13 09:02:32 2010 via web

lynnchu says that those who thrill to "transformation," can be as blind as jingoists who thrill to battle.
Sun Jun 20 08:12:28 2010 via web

lynnchu notes that there is a time and a place—a context, a sphere—for exercises of power. The Constitution lays out the broad venues.
Sun Jun 20 08:13:36 2010 via web

lynnchu has just one thing to say about St. Martins' new contract. The bundle theory of copyright went out with the 76 Act.
Sat Jul 3 07:57:54 2010 via web

lynnchu thinks that at root the Google Book Settlement is indeed about antitrust. But not about Google—this was a publisher cartel conspiracy. #GBS
Sat Jul 3 18:42:24 2010 via web

lynnchu believes Google was used as the excuse for a publisher cartel to entrap authors into a publisher-dictated electronic "deal." #GBS
Sat Jul 3 18:46:17 2010 via web

lynnchu feels that Google in the future among other e-publishers will prove authors' best friend. But not via the "Google Book Settlement." #GBS
Sat Jul 3 18:48:40 2010 via web