What gives money or art its value? Ask J.S.G. Boggs.

From Suite 101:

Although the United States Treasury Department has very strict and serious laws about the counterfeiting of currency, there is one law that is above them that they seem to recognize and that is the artists freedom of expression.

J.S.G. Boggs (born Steve Litzner) is most famous for his hand drawn, one-sided United States bills that he then exchanges for goods and services just like real money. His drawings show the hand of a master draftsman so much so that he has been arrested for his counterfeiting in England and Australia. Boggs was acquitted in both cases on the grounds that he was creating art and not forging or counterfeiting currency and trying to pass it off as such.

But Boggs’ creations are as elusive as his philosophy about the art he creates. He does not consider the drawn bank notes as money and they are commonly referred to as Boggs Notes, Boggs Bills, and Boggs Dollars. Boggs considers the art part of his work when he exchanges the bills, receives change, and receipt and goods. He then is willing to sell the receipt, change and goods as the art, not the original bill. If a collector wants a hand drawn Boggs Bill they will have to track down the lucky recipient themselves.

While Boggs art work could be considered hard to collect and esoteric he is taken seriously by the art world. The proof? His work is in the collections of the British Museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, the Museum of Modern Art, and the Smithsonian Institution.

One of my favorite books on the “value” of money is Lawrence Wechsler’s Boggs: A Comedy of Values.

Girl Talk on Remix Culture

Gregg Gillis, a/k/a Girl Talk, spoke with fans online via the Globe and Mail on his work:

I believe in what I’m doing, so at this point, the fact that there has been no problems feels great.   Some of those national publications like to write stories and make it seem like me or Illegal Art are a bunch of idiots, like we just don’t give a fuck and that’s why we’re releasing the music.   Completely ignoring the whole idea of Fair Use. It’s definitely not under the radar any more.   That was the point I was trying to make. But times are changing. The way the general public views intellectual property in 2009 is much different than in 1999. Look around the internet.   So much content comes from pre-existing media. We’re used to it now. Christian Bale goes crazy on the set of T4.   That turns into a techno song, which then turns into a cartoon on YouTube, which will then turn into a T-shirt. Everyone is constantly exchanging ideas and building upon previously existing material.  So the idea of a remix being a real artform is being validated in our culture every day.

A poliitician would be an excellent replacement for Souter.

Gordon Silverstein has a terrific column explaining why President Obama should appoint a politician to the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Souter’s retirement. I think he’s spot on in understanding why, as Obama explained, it’s important that the future Justice “understands that justice ‘is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.’” Silverstein explains that many of the Court’s cases involve the Constitution’s impact on political and legislative functions, that none of the current justices has any legislative experience, and that it would make sense to have someone on the Court who really understands what the real-world consequences of its decisions:

Someone with the appropriate legal experience who also has faced voters and listened to constituents, someone who has rounded up votes to pass legislation and has actually implemented policy, would bring to the bench an intimate knowledge and understanding of the American political system, its institutions, and how they actually work, on the ground, in the 21st century. 

I agree too with Silverstein that most law professors would not identify these as the Court’s needs. But there is too much abstraction on the Court these days — too much concern with doctrinal purity and not enough with the practical consequences of that doctrine. Take campaign finance for example. Many opponents of campaign finance regulation ground their stance in the belief that the right to free speech forbids restrictions on the right to give money to political campaigns. They equate money and speech. But if  the ways unregulated spending affects political speech is  in fact to restrict the access of multiple viewpoints (by, fo example, crowding out of what in essence is a limited range of communication the interests of less well funded voices), then the equation of money with speech makes no sense — if  it limits the voices heard, unregulated campaign finance limits free speech. A politician will certainly have a better sense of the reality of the situation than any sitting member of the Court.

Like most legal questions, we cannot definitely answer this question without considering its practical effects. I hope, therefore, that Obama strays from the style we’ve seen for too long: appellate judges and lawyers with strong academic support. A politician would be a great alternative.

Stuck on a problem? Move!

Stephanie West Allen at idealawg is fascinated with a topic I’ve always had an interest in: the ways our bodies affect our minds. I’m a long distance runner, and I’ve always thought the stamina running provides me is a huge part of what intellectual productivity I have. Allen has previously discussed “embodied cognition,” the ways moving our bodies can help us think through and solve problems. And today she points to scientific support for the idea. As one of the authors of the study Allen discusses explains:

[B]y directing the way people move their bodies, we are – unbeknownst to them – directing the way they think about the problem.

Jury service — the avoidance thereof and the devotion thereto.

Supreme Court Justice Byron White, in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522, 530 (1975) (citations omitted):

The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power — to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge. . . . Community participation in the administration of the criminal law, moreover, is not only consistent with our democratic heritage, but is also critical to public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system.

The hatred of jury service may be a symptom of problems with our democratic system, but it is a common attitude. As Lowering the Bar reports, “Nobody really likes jury duty, but probably nobody doesn’t like it as much as Daniel Ellis.” Ellis “wrote on his jury questionnaire (reviewed by the judge and attorneys as the first step in deciding who should serve) that he was biased against (for example) homosexuals and blacks.” The judge subsequently questioned Ellis:

JUDGE: “You say on your form that you’re not a fan of homosexuals.”

ELLIS (interrupting, hoping to be jailed more quickly): “[And t]hat I’m a racist.”

ELLIS (finding himself still not in jail yet): “I’m frequently found to be a liar, too. I can’t really help it.”

JUDGE: “I’m sorry?”

ELLIS: “I said I’m frequently found to be a liar.”

NICKERSON: “So, are you lying to me now?”

ELLIS: “Well, I don’t know. I might be.”

JUDGE: “I have the distinct impression that you’re intentionally trying to avoid jury service.”

ELLIS: “That’s true.”

The report concludes: “Judge Nickerson ordered Ellis taken into custody. Ellis was later released but could well face charges of perjury, among other things.”

Meanwhile, in Bozeman, Montana, Erik Slye’s response to a jury summons stated the following:

Apparently you morons didn’t understand me the first time. I cannot take time off from work. I’m not putting my family’s well-being at stake to participate in this crap. I don’t believe in our “justice” system and I don’t want to have a goddam thing to do with it. Jury duty is a complete waste of time. I would rather count the wrinkles on my dog’s balls than sit on a jury. Get it through your thick skulls. Leave me the f__k [sic] alone.”

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports that Slye’s wife, Jennifer, “wrote the note out of frustration that the court summoned her husband after he had told the court he couldn’t afford to take time off work.” Erik Slye was called to court and asked by the Judge whether Slye considered him a “moron.” Slye said no and apologized, and the judge excused Slye without a warning.

There is a lot to criticize about our jury system, from the disruption it causes to jurors’ lives to the sometimes questionable verdicts jurors render. My students at the University of Amsterdam (where I am blessed with the opportunity to teach for a couple of weeks each year) think it’s laughable.

But the right to a jury is so bound up with my belief in what is best about the U.S. that I find it difficult to accept the criticisms as grounds for a major overhaul of the system. Even when they seem to get things wrong, juries often do justice. Doctors rightfully criticize medical malpractice for the lottery-like nature of its awards to patients and for the questionable ability of jurors to evaluate the quality of medical care, but when they do so they rarely mention two significant purposes malpractice serves that would otherwise be neglected. First, few patients, insured or uninsured, can afford the astronomical costs of care for bad medical outcomes (whether or not there was malpractice). Is it any wonder jurors lean toward the injured patient as against the malpractice insurer? Second, the U.S. has the highest standard of medical care in the world. It isn’t because the medical profession allows any independent regulation of those standards. It’s because of the threat of adverse jury verdicts in malpractice cases.

In short, juries are a safeguard against the law’s tendency oftentimes to lose touch with real life. The late Judge David Bazelon, who sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, made exactly this point in “The Adversary Process: Who Needs It?,” 12th Annual James Madison Lecture, New York University School of Law (April, 1971), reprinted in 117 Cong. Rec. 5852, 5855 (daily ed. April 29, 1971)):

It’s easy for the public to ignore an unjust law, if the law operates behind closed doors and out of sight. But when jurors have to use a law to send a man to prison, they are forced to think long and hard about the justice of the law. And when the public reads newspaper accounts of criminal trials and convictions, they too may think about whether the convictions are just. As a result, jurors and spectators alike may bring to public debate more informed interest in improving the criminal law. Any law which makes many people uncomfortable is likely to attract the attention of the legislature. The laws on narcotics and abortion come to mind and there must be others. The public adversary trial thus provides an important mechanism for keeping the substantive criminal law in tune with contemporary community values.

I’m pretty fond of Becky’s take on jury service at Wedded Bliss:

Jury Duty can be described as a commentary on society. I tend to forget how ridiculous people are when I haven’t been outside my little cross-section of the world in a while. Major reality check on that one on Friday, as well as an interesting peak into our judicial system. To start I have to say that while I agree with the inconvenience of the whole jury duty thing I have a difficult time buying into the idea that my time is more important than the possible future of the person that is on trial and so I just can’t blow off jury duty as many people can. Call me naive, but it is who I am. While I recognize the flaws in the system (it’s pretty hard to miss while you are sitting in a room for 8 hours on a workday), I also honestly think that we’ve got about the best system I’ve seen and so if I’m not willing to be part of a jury then I’m not really willing to be part of the society that at this age I’ve chosen to be part of (kind of the same way I feel about voting – responsibility of being a member of this society people, get your butt in gear and deal with the fact that with rights comes responsibilities).

The MPAA explains how to show DVD clips in the classroom (the easy way?)

More lobbying to ridicule! From Ars Technica comes a video shown by the Motion Picture Assocation of America to the U.S. Copyright Office as “part of the triennial DMCA exemptions review.”  

In the video, the MPAA suggests that teachers who want to use movie clips as part of their curricula should use a camcorder to record the movie off of a TV set, and that this is an acceptable way to use video clips without breaking a DVD’s copyright protections. 

The Monopoly game is over.

Here’s one reversal of Bush administration policy no one will mistake: the New York Times reports that the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division will strengthen antitrust rules and aggressively enforce the nation’s antitrust laws “against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share.” Remarkably, “[d]uring the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law. Many smaller companies complaining of abusive practices by their larger rivals were so frustrated by the Bush administration’s antitrust policy that they went to the European Commission and to Asian authorities.”

When the Bush Administration, “[r]eflecting deep skepticism of the role of government in the marketplace,”  made its lax enforcement of antitrust laws official policy in 2008, “three of the four commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission denounced the guidelines, calling them ‘a blueprint for radically weakened enforcement’ against anticompetitive practices.”

The Obama Administration, in contrast, believes it was a major mistake to relax enforcement of the antitrust laws during the the early years of the Great Depression, a policy believed to have “enabled many large companies to engage in pricing, wage and collusive practices that harmed consumers and took years to reverse.” The new policy is expected to hit tech companies especially hard, but is also aimed at “agriculture, energy, health care, . . . and telecommunications companies. ”

In a related note, embedded below, from Silicon Alley Insider, is a copy of a PowerPoint presentation Google is showing around Washington, D.C., marked up with comments by Consumer Watchdog.

Leonard Cohen: The Law

The Question: existing copyright laws do more harm than good.

The Economist this week is sponsoring online a good old-fashioned debate, with the two sides lined up on either side of the question: existing copyright laws do more harm than good.

Melissa Harris Lacewell on Empathy, its importance to social cohesion, and more on its importance to good judging.

Wisdom from Melissa Harris Lacewell on the centrality of empathy in creating a United States:

[W]e are participants in a nation only to the extent that we imagine ourselves to be part of a community or a “people.” Empathy is an important part of what allows us to engage in that imagined sense of linked fate, shared identity, and common purpose. Without empathy we cannot enter into a social contract whereby we are willing to subjugate some of our selfish impulses in order to abide by the rule of law and the dictates of a civil society.  

As Laura E. Little points out in “Adjudication and Emotion,” 3 Florida Coastal Law Journal, 205, 210 ( 2002)  , “Empathy . . . may actually facilitate the process of understanding competing points of view so necesssary to quality adjudication. As Judge Richard Posner argues, empathy enables a judge to integrate into her decsionmaking remote human interests that are not immediately before the judge, but are possibly affectetd substantially by the judge’s decsions. Posner praises empathy for its cognitive character, suggesting that the emotion more likely reflects an evaluation of beliefs, rather than an ungrounded emotional reaction that short-circuits reasoning.” [Citing Richard Posner, “Emotions versus Emotionalism in Law,” The Passions of Law (Susan A. Bandes, ed. 1999).

Richard Posner too knows empathy is a component of good judging.

Richard Posner “is considered to be one of the most respected judges in the United States, and “although generally considered a man of the right, Posner’s pragmatism, his qualified moral relativism and moral skepticism, and his affection for the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche set him apart from most American conservatives.” Posner is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and he quite plainly recognizes that empathy is a fundamental component of good judging. As he writes in How Judges Think (at 117; emphasis added):

Another . . . major factor in judicial decisions in the open area [that is, where the language of the law does not prescribe a clear answer] is “good judgment,” an elusive faculty best understood as a compound of empathy, modesty, maturity, a sense of proportion, balance, a recognition of human limitations, sanity, prudence, a sense of reality and common sense. . . . It is another of the means that people have for maneuvering in situations of uncertainy. If law were logical, “good judgment” would not be an admired quality in judges – as it is even by legalists. 

Yes, Kevin, empathy is part of judging well, and Oliver Wendell Holmes thought so too.

Kevin O’Brien of the Plain Dealer expresses the view of many who mock President Obama’s desire that his Supreme Court nominee have “empathy”:

I have scoured my pocket copy of the Constitution. Couldn’t find a single reference to “empathy,” though. I tried searching an online version, too, but when I typed “empathy” in the search window, the only answer I got back was, “Did you misspell something?”

I looked up the oath of office that Souter’s successor will take. I don’t see “empathy” there, either, . . . 

O’Brien and his ilk have a stunted view of what it means to be a judge. Applying the law is not like doing algebra; instead, it is far more often (at least in cases so contested they get to the Supreme Court) a matter of making difficult judgments that involve weighing values and consequences in the real world. It hardly is ridiculous to consider “empathy” a valuable quality in making these judgments. One need not look far into the past to see a case where an inability to empathize with what Congress plainly intended led to a ridiculous (and soon overturned) outcome.

But you need not take my word for it.  Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Supreme Court justice and one of the most influential intellects in U.S. legal history, made clear in The Path of the Law that it is a fallacy to think judges can apply only logic to the law and that a keen sense of the social impact of one’s decisions is fundamental to sound judging (emphasis added):

The fallacy to which I refer is the notion that the only force at work in the development of the law is logic. . . . The danger of which I speak is not the admission that the principles governing other phenomena also govern the law, but the notion that a given system, ours, for instance, can be worked out like mathematics from some general axioms of conduct. . . .

This mode of thinking is entirely natural. The training of lawyers is a training in logic. The processes of analogy, discrimination, and deduction are those in which they are most at home. The language of judicial decision is mainly the language of logic. And the logical method and form flatter that longing for certainty and for repose which is in every human mind. But certainty generally is illusion, and repose is not the destiny of man. Behind the logical form lies a judgment as to the relative worth and importance of competing legislative grounds, often an inarticulate and unconscious judgment, it is true, and yet the very root and nerve of the whole proceeding. You can give any conclusion a logical form. You always can imply a condition in a contract. But why do you imply it? It is because of some belief as to the practice of the community or of a class, or because of some opinion as to policy, or, in short, because of some attitude of yours upon a matter not capable of exact quantitative measurement, and therefore not capable of founding exact logical conclusions. Such matters really are battle grounds where the means do not exist for the determinations that shall be good for all time, and where the decision can do no more than embody the preference of a given body in a given time and place. We do not realize how large a part of our law is open to reconsideration upon a slight change in the habit of the public mind. No concrete proposition is self evident, no matter how ready we may be to accept it, not even Mr. Herbert Spencer’s “Every man has a right to do what he wills, provided he interferes not with a like right on the part of his neighbors.”

. . . There is a concealed, half conscious battle on the question of legislative policy, and if anyone thinks that it can be settled deductively, or once for all, I only can say that I think he is theoretically wrong, and that I am certain that his conclusion will not be accepted in practice semper ubique et ab omnibus [always, everywhere, and for everything]. . . .

I think that the judges themselves have failed adequately to recognize their duty of weighing considerations of social advantage. The duty is inevitable, and the result of the often proclaimed judicial aversion to deal with such considerations is simply to leave the very ground and foundation of judgments inarticulate, and often unconscious, as I have said. . . . I cannot but believe that if the training of lawyers led them habitually to consider more definitely and explicitly the social advantage on which the rule they lay down must be justified, they sometimes would hesitate where now they are confident, and see that really they were taking sides upon debatable and often burning questions.

Lincoln on legal practice

From The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, “Notes for a Law Lecture,” from July 1, 1850:

DISCOURAGE LITIGATION. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser-in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.

Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually over-hauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.

The matter of fees is important, far beyond the mere question of bread and butter involved. Properly attended to, fuller justice is done to both lawyer and client. An exorbitant fee should never be claimed. As a general rule never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer. When fully paidnbeforehand, you are more than a common mortal if you can feel the same interest in the case as if something was still in prospect for you, as well as for your client. And when you lack interest in the case the job will very likely lack skill and diligence in the performance. Settle the amount of fee and take a note in advance.

Then you will feel that you are working for something, and you are sure to do your work faithfully and well. . . .

This idea of a refund or reduction of charges from the lawyer in a failed case is a new one to me-but not a bad one.

Do your own American remix!

From my friends at Remix America, a site that provides free, online editing software that gives you the tools to remix the great words of our forefathers with the hot-button issues of today:

Tweets on Law Practice

Matthew Homann, at the [non]billable hour, has published  100 Tweets: Thinking About Law Practice in 140 Characters or Less (pdf).  His advice is terrific. Here are some of my favorites:

1. “My lawyer can beat up your lawyer” is not a marketing strategy. “My lawyer will call me back before yours will” is. 

8. The most significant advantage you possess over lawyers who’ve come before you is that you don’t believe what they do. 

16. The confused mind always says no. 

28. You should never have a bigger monitor or more comfortable chair than your secretaries do. 

53. Never confuse your desire to explain something with yourability to do so. 

84. Trying to learn client service in ethics class is like trying to learn to ride a bicycle by watching lots of bike accidents. 

By the way, on Twitter, I’m “@pbfriedman.”

We have to pay it all back sooner or later.

Margaret Atwood — as wonderful a novelist as we have — has written a book on debt, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth . John Gray’s review of the book reminds me of what my grandfather, an immigrant who landed in Cleveland after a genuine odyssey, always said: everything we have we only borrow; in the end we give it all back. And he never had much. As Gray writes:

If Atwood’s Payback contains a lesson it is that debts must be repaid. The type of political economy that operated in the US over the past twenty years, which some imagined would spread throughout the world, was based on the belief that this old-fashioned maxim no longer applied. A new era had arrived, in which sophisticated techniques of financial management could transform debt into a means of wealth creation from which even the poor could benefit.

The new era turned out to be short-lived, or else nonexistent. America was able to live on credit only by borrowing from other countries, above all China. With the bursting of the bubble it has become less clear whether America’s creditors will continue to commit funds on the required scale, while the claim of American finance capitalism to be a universal economic model has collapsed. Along with other governments, the Obama administration is faced with the task of dealing with the danger of recession turning into something worse. A large-scale monetary and fiscal stimulus will be administered in order to stave off depression. We must hope the stimulus has the desired effect. Whether or not it succeeds, it involves a redistribution from savers to borrowers that does not square with traditional values regarding the payment of debt. In order to resume economic growth, past debts will be devalued and new debts incurred.

That does not mean payback will be avoided. Returning to the levels of consumption of the recent past means running up an ever-larger environmental bill. As Atwood argues, there must eventually be a reckoning; the ancient conception of a link between human society and the natural world has not been rendered obsolete. If humanity is unwilling or unable to pay back its debts, the planet will surely collect.

I am also reminded of the following poem by a Nobel Prize winner:

Nothing’s a Gift
Wislawa Szymborska 

-translated by Walter Whipple

Lessig’s Conversation of Remix – fair use? Warner Music doesn’t think so.

Lawrence Lessig’s lecture on remix culture, posted to YouTube, was the subject of a DMCA takedown notice by Warner Music. As Lessig explains, “Apparently, YouTube’s content-ID algorithm had found music in the video that they claimed ownership to.” The uploader’s protest to the takedown notice was apparently successful, which reinstates the video while Google reviews the legitimacy of the fair use claim against Warner Music’s copyright infringement claim.  Lessig’s blog post, along with the entirety of his lecture, is here.  Below is the segement that was blocked and is, for now, restored:

Here’s more on DJ Danger Mouse’s Grey Album. And more on Girl Talk here, here, and here.

Make Cleveland Better!

Cleveland Ideas is a new site dedicated to harnessing Clevelanders’ creativity to make Northeast Ohio a better place.  Have an idea?  Let them know.  All they ask is that you keep it positive:

Wind of Change: Wind turbines on Lake Erie soon?

From today’s Plain Dealer:

St. Louis has the Gateway Arch. Seattle has the Space Needle. Cleveland has  . . . wind turbines on Lake Erie? That’s the iconic vision that could lead to a new industry in offshore wind and possibly thousands of new jobs, leaders of a Cuyahoga County energy task force say. . . . That’s according to a yearlong feasibility study the task force released Friday in a media briefing at the Great Lakes Science Center.

The task force would like to see the turbines constructed within 3 years. The study demonstrated that  neither ice nor migrating birds will pose obstacles to the project. Migrating birds fly at heights above the turbines, and the design would divert ice floes.  

Not only would the project give Cleveland the lead in developing wind power projects in the Great Lakes Region, it would also be an enormous boost to local manufacturing. Timken, the Canton-based manufacturer of ball bearings and alloy steel, “already earns tens of millions of dollars supplying bearings to turbine makers,” and, according to the task force, “Ohio has hundreds of companies supplying parts to the wind industry.

In short, as Norman Tien, the dean of the engineering school at Case Western Reserve University stated, the  project “has the potential to dramatically change the economic landscape of the region.”

And even more good news for a wind powered Cleveland future: according to the Chicago Tribune, investors are bullish on wind energy. “Wind has jumped ahead of other green energy sources because innovations in turbine technology (think: windmills) have improved the efficiency and made systems the most cost effective alternative.”

Stop those dangerous . . . er, player pianos!

Copyright legislation throughout history has primarily consisted of congressional efforts to preserve financial interests threatened by new technologies. We are, of course, living through a technological revolution right now, so we are living through copyright wars. 

But who knew the 1909 Copyright Act (in effect until the current one was enacted and signed into law in 1976) was a response to the threat posed by . . . yes, PLAYER PIANOS!

Music publishers, who had secured their rights in sheet music, were freaked out at the thought there might be mechanical reproductions of their music they wouldn’t be paid for. As Mike Masnick explains it at Techdirt

The big innovation of the 1909 copyright [Act] was compulsory licensing on mechanical rights. This was put into place for one reason: fear about player pianos and how they would dominate the market and destroy the need for musicians. Within a matter of decades, the player piano market was effectively gone… and yet, these massive changes designed solely to deal with the player piano have stuck around ever since. Now apply that same story to basically every other technological innovation, and that gets you copyright law.

You don’t have to look far to find a current example that proves Mike’s point.  Amazon’s Kindle2 ebook hit the market with the capacity to read the electronic texts loaded into it aloud in a computer-generated voice. As afterdawn reports, “the Author’s Guild saw this feature as a“performance” when used and pressured Amazon to allow publishers to decide on an eBook-by-eBook basis whether to enable the feature or not.” Whether this new technology represents a genuine threat to the existing financial interests of publishers and/or authors is pure speculation, but the Author’s Guild is adamant:

 We will not . . .  surrender our members’ economic rights to Amazon or anyone else. The leap to digital has been brutal for print media generally, and the economics of the transition from print to e-books do not look as promising as many assume. Authors can’t afford to start this transition to digital by abandoning rights.”  

Of course, the Authors Guild was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit directed at shutting down a much vaster and more revolutionary technological advance, the Google Library Project.  As I have written, I never understood what good they possibly have been doing themselves if they’d stopped that project.  Nor can I understand their efforts to stifle the transition we plainly are going through into electronic books.  

But now I know: you see a machine that can reproduce your “property,” and all you can think is you’ve got to stop that machine.  Even if it is just a player piano.