Former children’s authors Quentin Blake, Anne Fine and Jacqueline Wilson, bestselling authors Jeffrey Archer and Louis de Bernieres and critical favorites Thomas Pynchon, Zadie Smith and Jeanette Winterson have all opted out of the controversial Google book settlement, court documents have revealed.
Authors who did not wish their books to be part of Google’s revised settlement needed to opt out before Jan. 28, in advance of last week’s ruling from Judge Denny Chin over whether to allow Google to go ahead with its divisive plans to digitize millions of books. The judge ended up delaying his ruling, after receiving more than 500 written submissions, but court documents related to the case show that more than 6,500 authors, publishers and literary agents have opted out of the settlement.
As well as the authors named above, these include the estates of Rudyard Kipling, TH White, James Herriot, Nevil Shute and Roald Dahl, Man Booker prizewinners Graham Swift and Keri Hulme, poets Pam Ayres, Christopher Middleton, Gillian Spraggs and Nick Laird, novelists Bret Easton Ellis, James Frey, Monica Ali, Michael Chabon, Philip Hensher and Patrick Gale, historian Simon Sebag Montefiore, biographer Victoria Glendinning and bestselling author of the Northern Lights trilogy Philip Pullman.
Ursula K Le Guin, who gained significant author support for her petition calling for “the principle of copyright, which is directly threatened by the settlement, [to] be honored and upheld in the United States,” also opted out.
“My feelings were, in the end, that I doubted I would lose out by opting out, whereas I might do by opting in. Also, there was the principle that copyright is important,” said novelist Marika Cobbold, author of books including Guppies for Tea and Shooting Butterflies, who opted out.
“It would be like handing over my babies to a babysitter I’d never met, [and] I couldn’t understand what was in it for me,” she said. “I love Google, and in principle making information accessible is wonderful, but things are moving so fast, and authors are losing so much control over what we’ve done, that my fear was who knows, in five to 10 years’ time, how this information could be used?”
Gillian Spraggs has also set up a new group that will campaign in support of authors’ rights. For “UK authors and agents who are deeply concerned about the Google book settlement, the Digital Economy Bill, and other current threats to the fundamental principles of copyright,” its manifesto states that “authors have the right to have their intellectual property protected by the state [and] decide whether and where they are going to publish, and in what format(s).”
“The [Google books settlement] is in some trouble in the States. Following serious criticisms from the US Department of Justice, there are big questions over whether the court will approve it, and if it does, in what form,” Spraggs wrote. “But if authors in Britain don’t make their voices heard now, they may find that a similar scheme (or a worse one) has been imposed over here by government decree.”
Spraggs’ group, Action on Authors’ Rights, “aims to bring home to the UK government and opposition the well-founded concerns of UK authors about the Google book settlement and the Digital Economy Bill, and to have an input into the debate on digitization and copyright in Europe,” she said.
Award-winning science fiction author Gwyneth Jones said she decided to opt out of the Google book settlement on the advice of her agent, David Higham Associates, and on the advice of Spraggs, “who had read the small print.”
“Then I was inspired to read the small print too, and I didn’t like what I found. Google’s preemptive action has turned copyright law on its head. It seems they plan, unilaterally, to take ownership away from the writer, and the ownership doesn’t pass to the readers (fat chance!) but to a giant profit-making corporation. A vast entity allegedly intent on ‘doing nothing evil’ has simply decided this will be so, and then hired a fleet of lawyers to make it happen,” she said.
“The danger to me, and every other writer, is not that our works will be available free online (I offer most of my recent novels free online already. These ‘portable document format’ novels are the text as I wrote it, and they do my sales no harm at all). The danger of the digital ‘publishing’ corporations is their unprecedented access to billions of tiny payments, for product that costs them effectively nothing, at their point of entry,” she said. “This seems to mean they don’t have to worry about any form of resistance at all. I don’t like the sound of that, not from anybody’s point of view,” she said.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past