We are looking first at who and which NGOs are backing US DOJ ruling for global GOOGLE digital library and then looking at who and which organizations should be shouting loudly against this ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY for only the global 1%. The reason only the 5% to the 1% WRITERS GUILD was represented in that class action copyright lawsuit was ----as with all our US labor unions----the 5% labor union players are SHOW ME THE MONEY while our 99% of US writers are simply talented people writing for our 99% WE THE PEOPLE. Those 5% WRITERS GUILD making the settlement over copyright with global GOOGLE KNOW MOVING FORWARD will have no 99% writers or voice.....not even another 5% player----they will be no longer needed for global banking 1% propaganda.
OUR 99% WRITERS GUILD CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS LIKE OUR 99% BIBLIOPHILES ARE ALL SHOUTING AGAINST THESE US DOJ RULINGS AND TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT COPYRIGHT LAWS.
'That being said, it’s just common sense that a publisher should retain rights to a work only for a reasonable amount of time, and then only if it’s generating income for both parties'.
We have always understood the pipeline by global banking 1% of BOOK AWARD NGOs -------LIBRARIES buying those BOOK AWARD BOOKS ----in making the same OLD WORLD 5% PLAYER FAMILIES always the one's getting the BIG MONEY. When copyrights for books are extended these books are the ones staying on shelves whether they are read or not in order to keep money flowing to those 5% global banking freemason writers. So, the US DOJ ruling not only IGNORED THE MONOPOLY of global GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY-----it ignored several centuries of copyright law AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT ---I AM MAN-----that broadened opportunity for 99% of writers and the 99% readers wanting to hear THAT POLITICAL BIAS.
'The remedy is simple: Kill the entire outmoded concept of “out of print.” Instead, the contract should define when book rights are being “inadequately exploited” and therefore available for reversion to the author when the book fails to generate a certain amount of income—say, $250–$500—in a one-year period'.
For our 99% WE THE PEOPLE not caring about BOOKS-----AUTHOR RIGHTS------accessing REAL INFORMATION----these Trans Pacific Trade Pact and US DOJ laws changing centuries of COPYRIGHT LAWS apply to MEDICAL AND PHARMA PATENTS as well and is the reason all GENERICS PRODUCTS are disappearing. These public policies are not only about cultural arts COPYRIGHT and kill future ability to create new BENEFICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST BOOKS AND MEDICINE.
BELOW WE SEE WHAT SOUNDS LIKE GOOD LABOR ADVOCACY---BUT NOT ONE MENTION OF GLOBAL GOOGLE AND DIGITIZED LIBRARIES AND PUBLISHING KILLING 99% OF WRITERS.
Industry & Advocacy News
A Publishing Contract Should Not Be Forever
July 28, 2015
Diamonds may be forever, but book contracts should not be. There’s no good reason why a book should be held hostage by a publisher for the lifetime of the copyright, the life of the author plus seventy years—essentially forever. Yet that’s precisely what happens today. A publisher may go bankrupt or be bought by a conglomerate, the editors who championed the author may go on to other companies, the sales force may fail to establish the title in the marketplace and ignore it thereafter, but no matter how badly the publisher mishandles the book, the author’s agreement with the original publisher is likely to remain in effect for many decades.
That’s the way most book contracts have been drafted for more than a century, and publishers take it for granted; only a few brave souls have asked why or argued with it because that’s the way it has always been. In the ideal traditional publishing partnership—where the publisher nourished the author’s career; where the same editor worked closely with the author over decades, editing and reworking books and new book ideas; where the publisher actively marketed and promoted the author and gave the author a sufficient advance to live on between books--then it might have made sense for the publisher to own the rights for the entire copyright term. But that is the rare author-publisher relationship today.
Recognizing how unfair a lifetime-plus grant can be, the copyright law allows authors to get their rights back after 35 years, but that is a really long time, especially when a publisher has long ago stowed your book away in a dark attic. And for the author’s termination to be effective, the author needs to comply with complicated legal notice procedures that are difficult to understand and execute without a copyright lawyer’s help.
Authors victimized by this status quo know that it’s long past time for publishers to offer a fair deal. We believe three basic changes are urgently needed: (1) time-limited contracts, (2) a clause that provides for reversion of unexploited rights, and (3) a specific new unchallengeable definition to replace historic “out of print” clauses that are not remotely relevant in the electronic age.
When it comes to time limits in agreements, publishers historically have positioned themselves on the lucrative side of the line. With authors, the deal they offer basically lasts forever. But when they’re on the other side of the deal, licensing things like paperback reprints or foreign rights to other companies, publishers typically don’t make agreements that continue for the life of a book’s copyright. Instead, the contracts are good only for fixed periods—seven years, for example. If publishers can routinely demand licenses that expire, why shouldn’t authors?
We think the “standard” contract should last for a limited period of time from the date of publication; it should end well before the 35-year termination window opens. When the contract expires, if a book is still doing well, the author and publisher might negotiate another time-limited deal—or the author might choose to move the book to a house that has put more effort into marketing the author’s later works. If the book is no longer gaining support from the original publisher, the author might choose to self-publish it or take it to another publisher. In any case, a time-limited contract gives authors the leverage and flexibility that they need in today’s publishing environment.
Publishers will no doubt push back and call us naive. They need to make their money back over time, we get that; publishers need to be able to meet the bottom line. But so do authors. And if a publisher is unwilling to invest in a book anymore, it doesn’t deserve to own the rights anymore. It’s clear that when publishers are the ones offering to license material they control, they typically agree to time-limited deals. Authors deserve no less.
Time-limited licenses are just the first step in making sure that publishing contracts aren’t forever. The second step--ensuring that publishers can’t sit on subsidiary rights that they’ve licensed but fail to exploit--is at least as important. After all, publishers have a strong incentive to make those deals: they typically retain fifty percent of the proceeds. But the way most current contracts work, publishers who fail to do anything with rights such as paperback, audiobook, and foreign edition rights don’t have to give those rights back to the author until the agreement ends—another “forever” deal. That’s ridiculous. If the publisher has stopped doing its sales job—or even if the publisher believes that there’s simply no market for these rights after all—the author should be able to claw back the right to exploit them or find somebody better.
The solution is simple: All subsidiary rights an author grants to a publisher should be subject to reversion after the author’s demand if they are not exercised or exploited within eighteen to twenty-four months of publication. There’s no reason why a publisher’s ineffectiveness at selling subsidiary rights should reduce the author’s income forever.
(In a later installment, we’ll have more to say about which rights authors should license in the first place, for how much, and with how much oversight. For now, suffice it to say that authors should almost always retain film and dramatic rights, and in many cases foreign publication rights as well—and should always have the right to refuse bad deals.)
That brings us to the third step: the “out of print” clause, which has failed woefully to keep up with modern publishing practices and must be replaced. The original concept was straightforward: When a publisher fails to keep a book on the market in a profitable way, the author should get all the rights back. This is more important today than ever, since e-books and print-on-demand make it easy for authors to republish their backlists: a recent study conducted by the British Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) showed that 70% of authors who were able to reclaim their rights were able to earn more money from the work in question.
But publishers have cleverly managed to craft “out of print” clauses that make it almost impossible for authors to recapture their rights. Classic contract language states that a book is not out of print as long as it is “available for sale in any edition.” So publishers “release” the book in a print-on-demand or electronic edition that’s always available, even if few copies are actually sold. By relying on language originally intended to provide a real reversionary right, a publisher can now hold onto a book forever even if it’s not actually doing anything with it. That is not how “out of print” was supposed to work.
The remedy is simple: Kill the entire outmoded concept of “out of print.” Instead, the contract should define when book rights are being “inadequately exploited” and therefore available for reversion to the author when the book fails to generate a certain amount of income—say, $250–$500—in a one-year period. Using income as the yardstick, not a specific number of sales, is essential: Publishers might otherwise be able to game the clause by offering one-cent e-books the way they’ve gamed existing clauses by using e-books and print-on-demand.
This change would completely eliminate the contentious and increasingly irrelevant issue of what constitutes “in print,” as well as publishers’ clever delaying tactics. As things stand now, if a book actually happens to go out of print, authors must typically figure that out on their own, notify the publisher, wait many months to see whether the publisher is willing to bring the book back onto the market, and, if not, try to get the publisher to relinquish the rights. Our simple solution, allowing an author to get the rights back when a book is “inadequately exploited” as proven by an unreached income floor, would put an end to this ludicrous time-killing dance. If the minimum income failed to arrive, the author could reclaim the rights.
It’s worth noting here that no single solution will work equally well for all author-publisher relationships. Not all publishing contracts, in other words, need to look the same. A major impetus of the Fair Contract Initiative, as we’ve mentioned before, is to challenge publishers and authors alike to be more creative in solving the challenges of the twenty-first century publishing industry.
That being said, it’s just common sense that a publisher should retain rights to a work only for a reasonable amount of time, and then only if it’s generating income for both parties. But current contracts are designed (as they have been for years) to keep publishers in perpetual control over works that authors created and copyrighted. That’s one more publishing-contract tradition that needs to change to keep pace with the times.
____________________________________________
While the pipeline of BOOK AWARD promotions of only global banking 1% LITERARY STARS was not what our US libraries should have had as a focus-----those global banking 1% BOOKS were entertaining AND they could be INTERPRETED as to where global banking 1% was trying to take US society.
This is killing our GENERICS PRODUCT INDUSTRY as well------copyright patent laws made longer only benefit global banking 1% ----NOT 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
'Founded on October 6, 1876, during the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, the American Library Association was founded in 1876 and based in Chicago, Illinois'.
We would expect our AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION to be front and center in any CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT fighting global GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY for only the global 1% but as with all NATIONAL NGOs ------these leadership look just like our CONGRESS and PRESIDENTS. CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA far-right extreme wealth extreme poverty global 1% means our leadership in ALA are 5% global banking 1% players. The ALA does a great job making sure all those 5% global banking LITERARY STARS had room on shelves no matter the content----fighting for NO BANNING OF BOOKS is a good thing----allowing mostly 5% global banking LITERARY STAR authors carrying SOCIETAL FADS is NOT GOOD.
If we look when this PRIVATE NGO for libraries was founded----it was the time when global ROBBER BARONS started PATRONAGE to public and private libraries in US. This group was created to assure that patronage provided books selling the goals of global banking 1%. It is also why ALA does not SUE global GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY policies but MOVES FORWARD the closing of US public libraries and eventual digitizing of books all bringing revenue to this DIGITAL LIBRARY MONOPOLY.
American Library Association
Number of Members:
60,000
Dues:
$130.00
American Library Association
50 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
Phone: 800-545-2433
Fax: 312-440-9374
See map: Google Maps
General Email:
library@ala.org
American Library Association
Associated Organization Contact(s)
Keith Michael Fiels
Executive Director
American Library Association
American Library Association
50 E. Huron St.
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
Phone: 800-545-2433
Fax: 312-280-5014
See map: Google Maps
kfiels@ala.org
URL:
American Library Association
Founded on October 6, 1876, during the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, the American Library Association was created to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all. Our current strategic plan, ALA Ahead to 2015, calls for continued work in the areas of Advocacy for Libraries and the Profession, Diversity, Education and Lifelong Learning, Equitable Access to Information and Library Services, Intellectual Freedom, Literacy, Organizational Excellence and Transforming Libraries.
The oldest and largest library education and promotion association in the world, they have featured the Muppets in many advertising campaigns over the years.
Below we see an article selling the idea again that it is TRUMP defunding our libraries when all policies MOVING FORWARD this BURNING OF ALEXANDRIA US LIBRARY SYSTEM was installed during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
YOU MEAN AYN RAND'S ATLAS SHRUGGED IS A NOVEL THAT WILL DISAPPEAR? ABSOLUTELY, AS ALL OUR NEW US BLACK WRITERS AND THEIR WORKS.
So, the ALA was created to protect the PATRONAGE interests of GLOBAL ROBBER BARON 1% when they 'donated' to our US libraries-----and indeed used our library to promote global banking 1% propaganda by highlighting global banking LITERARY STARS creating societal FADS------but we KNOW our US librarians are BIBLIOPHILES---we KNOW they care about the BURNING OF LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA. Everyone wants that record of arts and culture for their lifetime remembered.
All talk of who should lead ALA-----all 5% to the 1%global banking players---WAKE UP 5% PLAYER LIBRARIANS!
Who should lead American Library Association?
Mar 19 2018
The American Library Association is facing significant financial challenges. The Trump administration wants to gut federal support for libraries. And librarians are fighting over whether its next executive director should be required to have a MLS degree...
If you’re a member of the American Library Association, and value the association as many of us do, you have enough to worry about. The Midwinter Meeting—held last month in Denver—was so poorly attended you could roll a bowling ball down the center aisle of the show floor without hitting anyone, with attendance at its lowest point in almost three decades.
Brian Kenney
Conference attendance is one of the three financial legs that ALA stands on, along with publishing and membership. Publishing has remarkably held its own—despite the incredible disruptions in media. And membership is down from a high of 66,000 in 2005 to around 56,000 today.
If that isn’t troubling enough, talk within the ALA’s many divisions is increasingly dire. Often members will continue their ALA membership but drop the pricey fees necessary to belong to the specialized divisions, like the AASL (American Association of School Librarians), LITA (the Library Information Technology Association), and RUSA (the Reference and User Services Association), all of which are facing steep declines in membership.
One division has lost nearly 50% of their net assets in the last 10 years and is scrambling to develop a business model to keep afloat. In response, some ALA divisions are reorganizing, discussing mergers, or talking frankly about shutting down.
Now add to this the fact that Keith Fiels, the ALA’s executive director, announced his retirement over 18 months ago and departed in July—and there still isn’t a permanent replacement in sight. The organization is facing serious financial challenges, and President Trump wants to gut federal support for libraries, but, hey, what's the hurry?
On the positive side, hiring a new executive director is an enormous opportunity for ALA. It’s a chance to bring in fresh blood, and to tap into expertise in association leadership that could help re-engineer the organization for the 21st century.
Except, a good swath of ALA’s membership is far more concerned with the ALA’s past than its future—specifically, they want to require that the ALA’s next executive director hold an MLS. And they are gumming up the search process to get their way.
To Recap
So how is it that ALA is still looking for Keith Fiels’s permanent replacement? The saga began at the 2017 ALA Midwinter Meeting, when the executive board introduced a resolution that would have made the MLS degree preferred for the executive director position, rather than a requirement. The resolution was narrowly defeated in the ALA Council, 78–75.
Months later, however, the search for a permanent replacement for Fiels failed to turn up a suitable candidate. So the search committee, led by former ALA president Courtney Young, recommended that the executive board and council revisit the MLS requirement. And last fall, ALA Council voted electronically to make the MLS “preferred,” this time with 77% support.
That's when the MLS-required minority mobilized to undo that vote, successfully circulating a petition to place the MLS question on the ALA’s spring ballot. Voting began this week, on March 12, and runs through April 4. To undo the council’s action, 25% of the ALA’s paid membership needs to vote—certainly not a lock, as ALA normally struggles to break 20% in its election turnout. If that turnout threshold is met, a simple majority decides the outcome of the MLS question.
But what’s really driving all this tussling over whether the MLS should be preferred versus required for ALA's next executive director? Well, you don’t need a doctorate in sociology to know that dominant groups develop, maintain, and promote myths to maintain their power. And requiring an MLS for the executive director job--because that’s the way we’ve always done it—is presented as a sacred myth, an inviolable truth.
“
Worrying about whether there are enough MLS degrees among ALA leadership is a bit like worrying about whether there are enough dogs at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.
”
Of course, within ALA, the dominant group is white, and by chance, 87% of those who hold an MLS degree are white. Thus, requiring an MLS all but guarantees that the successful candidate will be white, despite ALA’s rhetoric about diversity and inclusiveness.
And though anyone can join and participate in ALA—trustees, foundation presidents, library workers, vendors, libraries, publishers, association professionals—requiring an MLS means that unless you are in that 62% of the membership with the degree, don’t even think of applying to lead the organization.
But why? Worrying about whether there are enough MLS degrees among ALA leadership is a bit like worrying about whether there are enough dogs at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. ALA is all about librarians! The large and unwieldy ALA Council (ALA’s policy-making body) as well as the ALA executive board are both full of card-carrying librarians. And for better or worse, ALA annually elects a librarian as its president.
It’s regularly claimed that the ALA executive director position is some sort of pinnacle of the library profession, the pope of librarians. This is false. The executive director is an administrative position. In fact, many ALA members will have only a vague idea of who that person even is. The executive director is charged with executing the will of the ALA board, and managing the day-to-day operations of the association. In Game of Thrones parlance, the executive director is the Hand of the King, minus the nifty pin. The public face and voice of the association is always the ALA president.
Still, the MLS-required camp continues to promote the idea that only a librarian can be trusted to uphold our professional values.
Indeed, American librarianship has a unique and important set of core values that define and guide our profession. These values include equity of access, confidentiality and privacy, education, lifelong learning, diversity, intellectual freedom, social responsibility, and more. And they are values we can all be proud of. But let’s be honest: our values aren’t difficult concepts to grasp. Over lunch (make it three courses) you can easily cover them.
In my experience, when many of the MLS-required folks last worked in libraries, Gerald Ford was president. Librarians in the field today aren’t nearly so insecure and defensive. And the reality on the ground today is that good libraries pull together the staff we need to provide our communities with excellent library service. This includes new MLS graduates (who, even after earning the degree, still often have little concept of our professional values) as well as social workers, reading coaches, teachers, systems folk, and baristas, all of whom often want to work in libraries precisely because they share our values.
And we need them all. It’s our job as library leaders to instill our traditional values in our organizations and staff, whether that’s the new executive director at ALA, or the new security guard in your library.
Yes, the MLS remains a valuable degree. But today’s libraries—public libraries, certainly—simply don’t revolve around an MLS/non-MLS binary, although the inflamed rhetoric of the MLS-required group is certainly sowing plenty of divisiveness on the listservs.
Are you happy to have Carla Hayden heading the Library of Congress, after decades of non-librarian leadership? I certainly am. Not only is she the right person for the job, but her appointment corrected a decades-long wrong after all the years the LC was headed exclusively by nonlibrarians. That was an affront to every librarian.
The MLS-required crowd is quick to equate Hayden’s appointment to the executive-director job. But that’s a false equivalency—most obviously because, despite its size and the incredible scope of its mission, the Library of Congress is still a library, and it shares its DNA with libraries across the country. ALA, on the other hand, is a professional organization with the mission of promoting library service and librarianship; its DNA is closer to the American Hospital Association than any library.
This is not to say that librarian managers don’t develop incredible skills that can transfer to any number of positions, including the management of a professional association. And maybe we’ll get lucky and a librarian with deep association experience will present herself.
But in my experience, the best, most outstanding library managers are obsessed with being librarians. The best librarians are concerned with making their libraries better, rather than creating a better professional association. And that's where we should want the best librarians—in libraries. What we should want at the top of our professional association is the best association leader.
In fact, there’s even a professional association for that—the American Society of Association Executives, which provides a rigorous certification program for association executives.
It strikes me as pretty hypocritical that librarians have for decades been impersonating Rodney Dangerfield, complaining that our profession gets no respect, yet we can’t acknowledge that association managers have their own specialized skills. And what we stand to lose by not recognizing that fact are some of the best, most logical candidates to lead our association.
An 'Extraordinary' Process
Mary Ghikas
When you don’t like the outcome of something, it’s tempting to blame the process. And that’s exactly what MLS-required crowd is doing now.
Specifically, they’re calling foul on the ALA council’s electronic vote that made the executive director position MLS preferred. It’s being called “extraordinary,” with the implication being that the vote was somehow underhanded—this despite the fact the voting was open for a week and was preceded by a week of discussion.
In a profession where many of the practitioners have received their degrees completely online, and in an association where many committees now work virtually, an electronic vote is hardly extraordinary.
No, “extraordinary” would be waiting until next year’s ALA Midwinter Meeting to vote in person.
And what really is extraordinary is that a vocal, privileged minority would reject not only the vote (which wasn’t close) but the recommendations of the ALA search committee, executive board, council, and the presidents, boards, and councilors of 10 ALA divisions.
At the end of January, ALA veteran Mary Ghikas agreed to step in and serve as interim executive director through January of 2020. But while that stopgap move offers a measure of stability for ALA in the short term, what our association needs is a new leader ready to execute a long-term strategy.
Make no mistake, this battle over MLS-required could do real harm to ALA. And it's up to ALA members not to let that happen. In such extraordinary times, with so many challenges facing libraries and librarians, our professional association needs the best candidate out there, period, to lead us—not the best candidate who also happens to have an MLS degree.
_________________________________________
If 99% US WE THE PEOPLE are waiting for our national NGO NATIONAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION to be our REAL LEFT social progressive voice for 99% of citizens needing access to BOOKS and REAL INFORMATION----we must understand that this structure was created to serve those GLOBAL BANKING 1% ROBBER BARON patrons to libraries.
We already discussed how BALTIMORE CITY as all US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES have already these several years of OBAMA started defunding, outsourcing, and dismantling our libraries---public and private. We discussed how our BALTIMORE PRATT MAIN LIBRARY building is being renovated for what we KNOW is not being a public library. All our PRATT special collection of books as all other libraries in the city are being centralized into global banking 1% hands.
The building of new libraries during this age of ROBBER BARON few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA will be those GLOBAL GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARIES and WILL be only accessed by global 1%. These are NOT public 99% libraries.
THE BUSH-ERA US DOJ/SUPREME COURT RULING IGNORED ALL US MONOPOLY LAW---IGNORED CENTURIES OF COPYRIGHT COMMON LAW----AND IGNORED ALL US FEDERAL COURT RULINGS SURROUNDING EQUAL ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR 99% OF BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS------IT WAS YET ANOTHER ILLEGAL RULING AND CAN BE VOIDED ----EASY PEASY.
BOOKS will not suddenly disappear from our US library shelves---but the goal of global banking 1% is to create GLOBAL GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY for only the global 1% while 99% of US citizens black, white, and brown citizens have NO access to EMPOWERING BOOKS.
NOW we see why global banking 1% freemason LITERARY STAR ------LOVETT and his LOST BOOK OF HOLY GRAIL tied our AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION to the global GOOGLE digitizer character.
Posted on: April 06, 2018 00
Awards
The Six Winners of the 2018 AIA/ALA Library Building Awards
Work by Koning Eizenberg Architecture, Oudens Ello Architecture, and MSR Design are among this year's winning projects.
By Sara Johnson
Tulsa City-County Central Library in Oklahoma, designed by MSR Design
Today the American Institute of Architects released the winners for the 2018 Library Building Awards, which are given in partnership with the American Library Association. This year, the jury selected six winners, located in Oklahoma, Texas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Maryland, and California.
The entries are open to any library project in the world that is open to the public, provided it was designed by an architect licensed in the United States, and this year's submissions had to have been completed in or after 2013.
The 2018 jury was comprised of chair Daria Pizzetta, FAIA, of H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture in New York City; Sara Bushong of Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio; Patrick Deaton, AIA, of the North Carolina State University Libraries, Raleigh, N.C.; Terri Luke of Wake County Public Library in Cary, N.C.; Christopher Noll, AIA, of Noll & Tam Architects in Berkeley, Calif.; and Lisa Lintner Valenzuela of Johnson County Public Library in Franklin, Ind.
_________________________________________________
Here we see our US SUPREME COURT filled with global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA judges having absolutely no tie to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION or AMERICAN LEGAL COURT PRECEDENCE OR PROCEDURE----they are all ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS-----
As we stated earlier---this SUPREME COURT ruling is ILLEGAL ----it ignores MONOPOLY/ANTI-TRUST LAWS----but especially it ignores all our 99% equal protection and opportunity/access rights and laws-----BECAUSE these few decades of ROBBER BARON global banking pols and players -----they are only working for global media corporations. So, GLOBAL GOOGLE wins because the US SUPREME COURT works for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
'A United States appeals court ruled on Friday that Google’s effort to build a digital library of millions of books was “fair use” and did not infringe on the copyrights of authors'.
What this article by global banking 1% NEW YORK TIMES does not tell US citizens is what these rulings will look like in the future. Ruling that GLOBAL GOOGLE can digitize and have a global monopoly on that digital library----means
NO BOOKS FOR 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE.....FOREVER MORE QUOTH THE RAVEN.
'In Poe’s 18-stanza poem, “The Raven,” the line, “Quoth the Raven, Nevermore,” comes in toward the middle and gets repeated, or the word “nevermore” gets repeated, in the subsequent stanzas. McGann, University Professor and John Stewart Bryan Professor of Literature, said “nevermore” and “evermore,” which Poe also uses in the poem, capture the writer’s most important idea about poetry as “mournful and never-ending remembrance.”'
Google’s Digital Library Wins Court of Appeals Ruling
By ALEXANDRA ALTER
OCT. 16, 2015
The British Library in London. Google has been building a vast digital library and has approached major research libraries about scanning and digitizing books from their collections.
Credit Paul Hackett/Reuters
A United States appeals court ruled on Friday that Google’s effort to build a digital library of millions of books was “fair use” and did not infringe on the copyrights of authors.
“The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals,” Judge Pierre N. Leval of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote, explaining the court’s decision.
The ruling affirmed a decision that was reached two years ago in a lower court. In that case, the court rejected the claims by the Authors Guild, a writers’ organization, that Google’s book scanning project is a commercial venture that violates authors’ copyrights and drives down sales by making portions of their work available online free.
This week’s court decision is the latest blow for the Authors Guild, which has been fighting Google for a decade.
A representative of the Authors Guild said the group planned to take the case to the Supreme Court.
“America owes its thriving literary culture to copyright protection,” Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild in New York, said in a statement. “We are very disheartened that the court was unable to understand the grave impact that this decision, if left standing, could have on copyright incentives and, ultimately, our literary heritage.”
Since 2004, Google has been building a vast digital library and has scanned more than 20 million books. The project began when Google approached major research libraries about scanning and digitizing books from their collections. The scanned books can be searched through the Google Books search engine, which allows readers to search books for keywords or phrases and read some snippets of text.
Google has argued that making books available to search online might actually bolster sales and introduce readers to hard-to-find and out-of-print books. In a statement, Google said: “Today’s decision underlines what people who use the service tell us: Google Books gives them a useful and easy way to find books they want to read and buy, while at the same time benefiting copyright holders. We’re pleased the court has confirmed that the project is fair use, acting like a card catalog for the digital age.”
___________________________________________
Here is our ROBBER BARON global 1% letting US 99% of people know just that -----TESLA IS KING-----only TESLA was a REAL genius scientist that would not be handling the development of his discoveries ANYWHERE near what is MOVING FORWARD by global banking 1% SHIP OF FOOLS-----TESLA would indeed be disgusted by these 5% global banking MAD HATTER players.
In the future of MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL COMMONER CORE for the 99% of US and global citizens making only MYTH-MAKING available as information we will see a return to those ancient GODS AND GODDESSES as our focus of worship and the myth-making we see today on our US national media calling ELON MUSK exceptional----a genius -----that GOD APOLLO as SUN GOD......that is what MOVING FORWARD back to DARK AGES pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA STOIC KINGS AND QUEENS looks like. CRAZY DUDES.
No doubt ELON MUSK can't believe he was handed our entire US NASA SPACE INDUSTRY patented inventions over these several decades of Federal Air and Space agencies.
What does this song mean to you?
Writers & Publishers
from the album
Forever More ·
Lyrics Terms of Use
highlight lyrics to add meaning...
Advisory - the following lyrics contain explicit language:
why say anything if it doesn't mean nothing at all
if everything you do there's something in it for you or you won't do it at all
stay away
'cause i'm all about givin' a helping hand
talk about love every chance i can
please don't misunderstand me
'cause i'm all about givin' the dog a bone
come on everybody let's get it on
come on let's get it on
all that i believe is what i'm fighting for
and i will always be this way forever more
if i stand alone i'll be here like a stone
forever, forever, forever
yes i know exactly how the story goes
it was all meant to be
but there's just too much crazy shit going on
what is wrong with me
you can call me anything you want cause i don't wanna be
just another one repeating history
please don't misunderstand me
all i do is listen to my heart as it talks to me
(doing as i wish, ah just let it bleed, let it bleed)?
all that i believe is what i'm fighting for
and i will always be this way forever more
if i stand alone i'll be here like a stone
forever, forever, forever
if i only i could change, it's too late
or maybe rearrange my mind, it's too late
if only i could cha-a-a-a-a-a-a-ange
Photos
hhTesla - artist photos
hhTesla - artist photos
hhTesla - artist photos
hhTesla - artist photos
all that i believe is what i'm fighting for
and i will always be this way forever more
if i stand alone i'll be here like a stone
forever, forever, forever
'cause all that i believe is what i'm fighting for
and i will always be this way forever more
if i stand alone i'll be here like a stone
forever, forever, forever more
___________________________________________
Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria“Somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them.”
Here we see those OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS players sold as left social progressives on digital media---digital books----writers guild protectors------always MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY for only the global 1%.
Here we see that global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Berkeley corporation always sold as LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE always partnered with far-right neo-conservative STANFORD. This lawyer tied to global GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY lawsuit calls it a WIN-WIN -------he doesn't say it was a win for global banking 1% and what are that few LITERARY STARS------he doesn't say how it makes 99% of WE THE PEOPLE great big LOSERS. He doesn't even hint at the fact that these 5% players will NOT be getting what these rulings decide because TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT will NEGATE these kinds of civil awards of money.
'As Samuelson, the Berkeley law professor, put it in a paper at the time, “The proposed settlement thus looked like a win-win-win: the libraries would get access to millions of books, Google would be able to recoup its investment in GBS, and authors and publishers would get a new revenue stream from books that had been yielding zero returns'.
We see SAMUELSON is tied to what we shared yesterday as NGOs tied to WRITERS GUILD pretending to be fighting for digital book and writers' rights. All the NGOs listed below are FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT groups-----working for global 1% policies that kill 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE.
'Pamela Samuelson is recognized as a pioneer in digital copyright law, intellectual property, cyberlaw and information policy. She has written and spoken extensively about the challenges that new information technologies are posing for public policy and traditional legal regimes. Since 1996, she has held a joint appointment with the Berkeley Law School and the School of Information. She is the director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, serves on the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and on advisory boards for the Public Knowledge, and the Berkeley Center for New Media. She is also an advisor for the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic. Since 2002, she has also been an honorary professor at the University of Amsterdam'.
For our US black 99% of citizens not understanding why they are always repressed and never escape from oppression----this is it. Here is global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE HOWARD UNIVERSITY ----that global banking 1% corporation working for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS-----shouting that the policies of AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT ----I AM MAN-----that LOCKEAN left social progressive stance on civil rights and education based on NATURAL LAW not POSITIVE LAW------is a BAD THING. All this global banking 5% black player as lawyer has to say--it is EUROPEAN ergo, it is bad for our US 99% black citizens. Who benefited most from I AM MAN until CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA started their ECONOMY OF STEALING FROM THE POOR AND ECONOMIC STAGNATION OF US CITIES TO CREATE FAILED STATES? Our 99% of black and brown citizens......white citizens as well.
'But the European idea, “It’s based on natural law as opposed to positive law,” Lateef Mtima, a copyright scholar at Howard University Law School, said. “Their whole thought process is coming out of France and Hugo and those guys that like, you know, ‘My work is my enfant,’” he said, “and the state has absolutely no right to do anything with it—kind of a Lockean point of view.” '
We can always expect a global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE corporation HARVARD grad to be fighting for civil rights of global banking 1% and not 99% WE THE PEOPLE because HARVARD LAW works from the ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE CONSTITUTION-------and not our US CONSTITUTION. This is why MTIMA would denounce AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN EUROPEAN legal history ---that LOCKEAN 99% -----an fight for a DARK AGES OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS civil right to become extremely rich--extremely powerful anyway they can.
Our US 99% black citizens made to feel these AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT policies especially regarding PUBLIC EDUCATION/ACCESSING BOOKS AND REAL INFORMATION has not helped them-----look to those 5% global banking 5% players black, white, and brown citizens who SMOTHERED our thriving US domestic economy and IGNORED all civil rights and voter rights gained in 20th century as the reason the gains of US black citizens---as too our white and brown citizens is MOVING FORWARD----it is NOT our EUROPEAN AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN.
Lateef Mtima
Professor of LawJ.D., 1985, Harvard University
B.S., 1982, Amherst College
Biography
Lateef Mtima is a Professor of Law at the Howard University School of Law. After graduating with honors from Amherst College, Professor Mtima received his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School, where he was the co-founder and later editor-in-chief of the Harvard BlackLetter Journal.
He is admitted to the New York and Pennsylvania bars and has practiced intellectual property, bankruptcy, and commercial law, including a decade in private practice with the international law firm of Coudert Brothers.
Currently a member of the Advisory Council for the United States Court of Federal Claims, Professor Mtima has held the post of Distinguished Libra Visiting Scholar in Residence at the University of Maine School of Law, is a past President of the Giles S. Rich Inn of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and was a member of the founding Editorial Board for the American Bar Association intellectual property periodical Landslide.
Professor Mtima is the Founder and Director of the Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice, an accredited Non-governmental Organization Member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
OUR 99% WRITERS GUILD CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS LIKE OUR 99% BIBLIOPHILES ARE ALL SHOUTING AGAINST THESE US DOJ RULINGS AND TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT COPYRIGHT LAWS.
'That being said, it’s just common sense that a publisher should retain rights to a work only for a reasonable amount of time, and then only if it’s generating income for both parties'.
We have always understood the pipeline by global banking 1% of BOOK AWARD NGOs -------LIBRARIES buying those BOOK AWARD BOOKS ----in making the same OLD WORLD 5% PLAYER FAMILIES always the one's getting the BIG MONEY. When copyrights for books are extended these books are the ones staying on shelves whether they are read or not in order to keep money flowing to those 5% global banking freemason writers. So, the US DOJ ruling not only IGNORED THE MONOPOLY of global GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY-----it ignored several centuries of copyright law AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT ---I AM MAN-----that broadened opportunity for 99% of writers and the 99% readers wanting to hear THAT POLITICAL BIAS.
'The remedy is simple: Kill the entire outmoded concept of “out of print.” Instead, the contract should define when book rights are being “inadequately exploited” and therefore available for reversion to the author when the book fails to generate a certain amount of income—say, $250–$500—in a one-year period'.
For our 99% WE THE PEOPLE not caring about BOOKS-----AUTHOR RIGHTS------accessing REAL INFORMATION----these Trans Pacific Trade Pact and US DOJ laws changing centuries of COPYRIGHT LAWS apply to MEDICAL AND PHARMA PATENTS as well and is the reason all GENERICS PRODUCTS are disappearing. These public policies are not only about cultural arts COPYRIGHT and kill future ability to create new BENEFICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST BOOKS AND MEDICINE.
BELOW WE SEE WHAT SOUNDS LIKE GOOD LABOR ADVOCACY---BUT NOT ONE MENTION OF GLOBAL GOOGLE AND DIGITIZED LIBRARIES AND PUBLISHING KILLING 99% OF WRITERS.
Industry & Advocacy News
A Publishing Contract Should Not Be Forever
July 28, 2015
Diamonds may be forever, but book contracts should not be. There’s no good reason why a book should be held hostage by a publisher for the lifetime of the copyright, the life of the author plus seventy years—essentially forever. Yet that’s precisely what happens today. A publisher may go bankrupt or be bought by a conglomerate, the editors who championed the author may go on to other companies, the sales force may fail to establish the title in the marketplace and ignore it thereafter, but no matter how badly the publisher mishandles the book, the author’s agreement with the original publisher is likely to remain in effect for many decades.
That’s the way most book contracts have been drafted for more than a century, and publishers take it for granted; only a few brave souls have asked why or argued with it because that’s the way it has always been. In the ideal traditional publishing partnership—where the publisher nourished the author’s career; where the same editor worked closely with the author over decades, editing and reworking books and new book ideas; where the publisher actively marketed and promoted the author and gave the author a sufficient advance to live on between books--then it might have made sense for the publisher to own the rights for the entire copyright term. But that is the rare author-publisher relationship today.
Recognizing how unfair a lifetime-plus grant can be, the copyright law allows authors to get their rights back after 35 years, but that is a really long time, especially when a publisher has long ago stowed your book away in a dark attic. And for the author’s termination to be effective, the author needs to comply with complicated legal notice procedures that are difficult to understand and execute without a copyright lawyer’s help.
Authors victimized by this status quo know that it’s long past time for publishers to offer a fair deal. We believe three basic changes are urgently needed: (1) time-limited contracts, (2) a clause that provides for reversion of unexploited rights, and (3) a specific new unchallengeable definition to replace historic “out of print” clauses that are not remotely relevant in the electronic age.
When it comes to time limits in agreements, publishers historically have positioned themselves on the lucrative side of the line. With authors, the deal they offer basically lasts forever. But when they’re on the other side of the deal, licensing things like paperback reprints or foreign rights to other companies, publishers typically don’t make agreements that continue for the life of a book’s copyright. Instead, the contracts are good only for fixed periods—seven years, for example. If publishers can routinely demand licenses that expire, why shouldn’t authors?
We think the “standard” contract should last for a limited period of time from the date of publication; it should end well before the 35-year termination window opens. When the contract expires, if a book is still doing well, the author and publisher might negotiate another time-limited deal—or the author might choose to move the book to a house that has put more effort into marketing the author’s later works. If the book is no longer gaining support from the original publisher, the author might choose to self-publish it or take it to another publisher. In any case, a time-limited contract gives authors the leverage and flexibility that they need in today’s publishing environment.
Publishers will no doubt push back and call us naive. They need to make their money back over time, we get that; publishers need to be able to meet the bottom line. But so do authors. And if a publisher is unwilling to invest in a book anymore, it doesn’t deserve to own the rights anymore. It’s clear that when publishers are the ones offering to license material they control, they typically agree to time-limited deals. Authors deserve no less.
Time-limited licenses are just the first step in making sure that publishing contracts aren’t forever. The second step--ensuring that publishers can’t sit on subsidiary rights that they’ve licensed but fail to exploit--is at least as important. After all, publishers have a strong incentive to make those deals: they typically retain fifty percent of the proceeds. But the way most current contracts work, publishers who fail to do anything with rights such as paperback, audiobook, and foreign edition rights don’t have to give those rights back to the author until the agreement ends—another “forever” deal. That’s ridiculous. If the publisher has stopped doing its sales job—or even if the publisher believes that there’s simply no market for these rights after all—the author should be able to claw back the right to exploit them or find somebody better.
The solution is simple: All subsidiary rights an author grants to a publisher should be subject to reversion after the author’s demand if they are not exercised or exploited within eighteen to twenty-four months of publication. There’s no reason why a publisher’s ineffectiveness at selling subsidiary rights should reduce the author’s income forever.
(In a later installment, we’ll have more to say about which rights authors should license in the first place, for how much, and with how much oversight. For now, suffice it to say that authors should almost always retain film and dramatic rights, and in many cases foreign publication rights as well—and should always have the right to refuse bad deals.)
That brings us to the third step: the “out of print” clause, which has failed woefully to keep up with modern publishing practices and must be replaced. The original concept was straightforward: When a publisher fails to keep a book on the market in a profitable way, the author should get all the rights back. This is more important today than ever, since e-books and print-on-demand make it easy for authors to republish their backlists: a recent study conducted by the British Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) showed that 70% of authors who were able to reclaim their rights were able to earn more money from the work in question.
But publishers have cleverly managed to craft “out of print” clauses that make it almost impossible for authors to recapture their rights. Classic contract language states that a book is not out of print as long as it is “available for sale in any edition.” So publishers “release” the book in a print-on-demand or electronic edition that’s always available, even if few copies are actually sold. By relying on language originally intended to provide a real reversionary right, a publisher can now hold onto a book forever even if it’s not actually doing anything with it. That is not how “out of print” was supposed to work.
The remedy is simple: Kill the entire outmoded concept of “out of print.” Instead, the contract should define when book rights are being “inadequately exploited” and therefore available for reversion to the author when the book fails to generate a certain amount of income—say, $250–$500—in a one-year period. Using income as the yardstick, not a specific number of sales, is essential: Publishers might otherwise be able to game the clause by offering one-cent e-books the way they’ve gamed existing clauses by using e-books and print-on-demand.
This change would completely eliminate the contentious and increasingly irrelevant issue of what constitutes “in print,” as well as publishers’ clever delaying tactics. As things stand now, if a book actually happens to go out of print, authors must typically figure that out on their own, notify the publisher, wait many months to see whether the publisher is willing to bring the book back onto the market, and, if not, try to get the publisher to relinquish the rights. Our simple solution, allowing an author to get the rights back when a book is “inadequately exploited” as proven by an unreached income floor, would put an end to this ludicrous time-killing dance. If the minimum income failed to arrive, the author could reclaim the rights.
It’s worth noting here that no single solution will work equally well for all author-publisher relationships. Not all publishing contracts, in other words, need to look the same. A major impetus of the Fair Contract Initiative, as we’ve mentioned before, is to challenge publishers and authors alike to be more creative in solving the challenges of the twenty-first century publishing industry.
That being said, it’s just common sense that a publisher should retain rights to a work only for a reasonable amount of time, and then only if it’s generating income for both parties. But current contracts are designed (as they have been for years) to keep publishers in perpetual control over works that authors created and copyrighted. That’s one more publishing-contract tradition that needs to change to keep pace with the times.
____________________________________________
While the pipeline of BOOK AWARD promotions of only global banking 1% LITERARY STARS was not what our US libraries should have had as a focus-----those global banking 1% BOOKS were entertaining AND they could be INTERPRETED as to where global banking 1% was trying to take US society.
This is killing our GENERICS PRODUCT INDUSTRY as well------copyright patent laws made longer only benefit global banking 1% ----NOT 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
'Founded on October 6, 1876, during the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, the American Library Association was founded in 1876 and based in Chicago, Illinois'.
We would expect our AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION to be front and center in any CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT fighting global GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY for only the global 1% but as with all NATIONAL NGOs ------these leadership look just like our CONGRESS and PRESIDENTS. CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA far-right extreme wealth extreme poverty global 1% means our leadership in ALA are 5% global banking 1% players. The ALA does a great job making sure all those 5% global banking LITERARY STARS had room on shelves no matter the content----fighting for NO BANNING OF BOOKS is a good thing----allowing mostly 5% global banking LITERARY STAR authors carrying SOCIETAL FADS is NOT GOOD.
If we look when this PRIVATE NGO for libraries was founded----it was the time when global ROBBER BARONS started PATRONAGE to public and private libraries in US. This group was created to assure that patronage provided books selling the goals of global banking 1%. It is also why ALA does not SUE global GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY policies but MOVES FORWARD the closing of US public libraries and eventual digitizing of books all bringing revenue to this DIGITAL LIBRARY MONOPOLY.
American Library Association
Number of Members:
60,000
Dues:
$130.00
American Library Association
50 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
Phone: 800-545-2433
Fax: 312-440-9374
See map: Google Maps
General Email:
library@ala.org
American Library Association
Associated Organization Contact(s)
Keith Michael Fiels
Executive Director
American Library Association
American Library Association
50 E. Huron St.
Chicago, IL 60611
United States
Phone: 800-545-2433
Fax: 312-280-5014
See map: Google Maps
kfiels@ala.org
URL:
American Library Association
Founded on October 6, 1876, during the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, the American Library Association was created to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all. Our current strategic plan, ALA Ahead to 2015, calls for continued work in the areas of Advocacy for Libraries and the Profession, Diversity, Education and Lifelong Learning, Equitable Access to Information and Library Services, Intellectual Freedom, Literacy, Organizational Excellence and Transforming Libraries.
The oldest and largest library education and promotion association in the world, they have featured the Muppets in many advertising campaigns over the years.
Below we see an article selling the idea again that it is TRUMP defunding our libraries when all policies MOVING FORWARD this BURNING OF ALEXANDRIA US LIBRARY SYSTEM was installed during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
YOU MEAN AYN RAND'S ATLAS SHRUGGED IS A NOVEL THAT WILL DISAPPEAR? ABSOLUTELY, AS ALL OUR NEW US BLACK WRITERS AND THEIR WORKS.
So, the ALA was created to protect the PATRONAGE interests of GLOBAL ROBBER BARON 1% when they 'donated' to our US libraries-----and indeed used our library to promote global banking 1% propaganda by highlighting global banking LITERARY STARS creating societal FADS------but we KNOW our US librarians are BIBLIOPHILES---we KNOW they care about the BURNING OF LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA. Everyone wants that record of arts and culture for their lifetime remembered.
All talk of who should lead ALA-----all 5% to the 1%global banking players---WAKE UP 5% PLAYER LIBRARIANS!
Who should lead American Library Association?
Mar 19 2018
The American Library Association is facing significant financial challenges. The Trump administration wants to gut federal support for libraries. And librarians are fighting over whether its next executive director should be required to have a MLS degree...
If you’re a member of the American Library Association, and value the association as many of us do, you have enough to worry about. The Midwinter Meeting—held last month in Denver—was so poorly attended you could roll a bowling ball down the center aisle of the show floor without hitting anyone, with attendance at its lowest point in almost three decades.
Brian Kenney
Conference attendance is one of the three financial legs that ALA stands on, along with publishing and membership. Publishing has remarkably held its own—despite the incredible disruptions in media. And membership is down from a high of 66,000 in 2005 to around 56,000 today.
If that isn’t troubling enough, talk within the ALA’s many divisions is increasingly dire. Often members will continue their ALA membership but drop the pricey fees necessary to belong to the specialized divisions, like the AASL (American Association of School Librarians), LITA (the Library Information Technology Association), and RUSA (the Reference and User Services Association), all of which are facing steep declines in membership.
One division has lost nearly 50% of their net assets in the last 10 years and is scrambling to develop a business model to keep afloat. In response, some ALA divisions are reorganizing, discussing mergers, or talking frankly about shutting down.
Now add to this the fact that Keith Fiels, the ALA’s executive director, announced his retirement over 18 months ago and departed in July—and there still isn’t a permanent replacement in sight. The organization is facing serious financial challenges, and President Trump wants to gut federal support for libraries, but, hey, what's the hurry?
On the positive side, hiring a new executive director is an enormous opportunity for ALA. It’s a chance to bring in fresh blood, and to tap into expertise in association leadership that could help re-engineer the organization for the 21st century.
Except, a good swath of ALA’s membership is far more concerned with the ALA’s past than its future—specifically, they want to require that the ALA’s next executive director hold an MLS. And they are gumming up the search process to get their way.
To Recap
So how is it that ALA is still looking for Keith Fiels’s permanent replacement? The saga began at the 2017 ALA Midwinter Meeting, when the executive board introduced a resolution that would have made the MLS degree preferred for the executive director position, rather than a requirement. The resolution was narrowly defeated in the ALA Council, 78–75.
Months later, however, the search for a permanent replacement for Fiels failed to turn up a suitable candidate. So the search committee, led by former ALA president Courtney Young, recommended that the executive board and council revisit the MLS requirement. And last fall, ALA Council voted electronically to make the MLS “preferred,” this time with 77% support.
That's when the MLS-required minority mobilized to undo that vote, successfully circulating a petition to place the MLS question on the ALA’s spring ballot. Voting began this week, on March 12, and runs through April 4. To undo the council’s action, 25% of the ALA’s paid membership needs to vote—certainly not a lock, as ALA normally struggles to break 20% in its election turnout. If that turnout threshold is met, a simple majority decides the outcome of the MLS question.
But what’s really driving all this tussling over whether the MLS should be preferred versus required for ALA's next executive director? Well, you don’t need a doctorate in sociology to know that dominant groups develop, maintain, and promote myths to maintain their power. And requiring an MLS for the executive director job--because that’s the way we’ve always done it—is presented as a sacred myth, an inviolable truth.
“
Worrying about whether there are enough MLS degrees among ALA leadership is a bit like worrying about whether there are enough dogs at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.
”
Of course, within ALA, the dominant group is white, and by chance, 87% of those who hold an MLS degree are white. Thus, requiring an MLS all but guarantees that the successful candidate will be white, despite ALA’s rhetoric about diversity and inclusiveness.
And though anyone can join and participate in ALA—trustees, foundation presidents, library workers, vendors, libraries, publishers, association professionals—requiring an MLS means that unless you are in that 62% of the membership with the degree, don’t even think of applying to lead the organization.
But why? Worrying about whether there are enough MLS degrees among ALA leadership is a bit like worrying about whether there are enough dogs at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. ALA is all about librarians! The large and unwieldy ALA Council (ALA’s policy-making body) as well as the ALA executive board are both full of card-carrying librarians. And for better or worse, ALA annually elects a librarian as its president.
It’s regularly claimed that the ALA executive director position is some sort of pinnacle of the library profession, the pope of librarians. This is false. The executive director is an administrative position. In fact, many ALA members will have only a vague idea of who that person even is. The executive director is charged with executing the will of the ALA board, and managing the day-to-day operations of the association. In Game of Thrones parlance, the executive director is the Hand of the King, minus the nifty pin. The public face and voice of the association is always the ALA president.
Still, the MLS-required camp continues to promote the idea that only a librarian can be trusted to uphold our professional values.
Indeed, American librarianship has a unique and important set of core values that define and guide our profession. These values include equity of access, confidentiality and privacy, education, lifelong learning, diversity, intellectual freedom, social responsibility, and more. And they are values we can all be proud of. But let’s be honest: our values aren’t difficult concepts to grasp. Over lunch (make it three courses) you can easily cover them.
In my experience, when many of the MLS-required folks last worked in libraries, Gerald Ford was president. Librarians in the field today aren’t nearly so insecure and defensive. And the reality on the ground today is that good libraries pull together the staff we need to provide our communities with excellent library service. This includes new MLS graduates (who, even after earning the degree, still often have little concept of our professional values) as well as social workers, reading coaches, teachers, systems folk, and baristas, all of whom often want to work in libraries precisely because they share our values.
And we need them all. It’s our job as library leaders to instill our traditional values in our organizations and staff, whether that’s the new executive director at ALA, or the new security guard in your library.
Yes, the MLS remains a valuable degree. But today’s libraries—public libraries, certainly—simply don’t revolve around an MLS/non-MLS binary, although the inflamed rhetoric of the MLS-required group is certainly sowing plenty of divisiveness on the listservs.
Are you happy to have Carla Hayden heading the Library of Congress, after decades of non-librarian leadership? I certainly am. Not only is she the right person for the job, but her appointment corrected a decades-long wrong after all the years the LC was headed exclusively by nonlibrarians. That was an affront to every librarian.
The MLS-required crowd is quick to equate Hayden’s appointment to the executive-director job. But that’s a false equivalency—most obviously because, despite its size and the incredible scope of its mission, the Library of Congress is still a library, and it shares its DNA with libraries across the country. ALA, on the other hand, is a professional organization with the mission of promoting library service and librarianship; its DNA is closer to the American Hospital Association than any library.
This is not to say that librarian managers don’t develop incredible skills that can transfer to any number of positions, including the management of a professional association. And maybe we’ll get lucky and a librarian with deep association experience will present herself.
But in my experience, the best, most outstanding library managers are obsessed with being librarians. The best librarians are concerned with making their libraries better, rather than creating a better professional association. And that's where we should want the best librarians—in libraries. What we should want at the top of our professional association is the best association leader.
In fact, there’s even a professional association for that—the American Society of Association Executives, which provides a rigorous certification program for association executives.
It strikes me as pretty hypocritical that librarians have for decades been impersonating Rodney Dangerfield, complaining that our profession gets no respect, yet we can’t acknowledge that association managers have their own specialized skills. And what we stand to lose by not recognizing that fact are some of the best, most logical candidates to lead our association.
An 'Extraordinary' Process
Mary Ghikas
When you don’t like the outcome of something, it’s tempting to blame the process. And that’s exactly what MLS-required crowd is doing now.
Specifically, they’re calling foul on the ALA council’s electronic vote that made the executive director position MLS preferred. It’s being called “extraordinary,” with the implication being that the vote was somehow underhanded—this despite the fact the voting was open for a week and was preceded by a week of discussion.
In a profession where many of the practitioners have received their degrees completely online, and in an association where many committees now work virtually, an electronic vote is hardly extraordinary.
No, “extraordinary” would be waiting until next year’s ALA Midwinter Meeting to vote in person.
And what really is extraordinary is that a vocal, privileged minority would reject not only the vote (which wasn’t close) but the recommendations of the ALA search committee, executive board, council, and the presidents, boards, and councilors of 10 ALA divisions.
At the end of January, ALA veteran Mary Ghikas agreed to step in and serve as interim executive director through January of 2020. But while that stopgap move offers a measure of stability for ALA in the short term, what our association needs is a new leader ready to execute a long-term strategy.
Make no mistake, this battle over MLS-required could do real harm to ALA. And it's up to ALA members not to let that happen. In such extraordinary times, with so many challenges facing libraries and librarians, our professional association needs the best candidate out there, period, to lead us—not the best candidate who also happens to have an MLS degree.
_________________________________________
If 99% US WE THE PEOPLE are waiting for our national NGO NATIONAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION to be our REAL LEFT social progressive voice for 99% of citizens needing access to BOOKS and REAL INFORMATION----we must understand that this structure was created to serve those GLOBAL BANKING 1% ROBBER BARON patrons to libraries.
We already discussed how BALTIMORE CITY as all US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES have already these several years of OBAMA started defunding, outsourcing, and dismantling our libraries---public and private. We discussed how our BALTIMORE PRATT MAIN LIBRARY building is being renovated for what we KNOW is not being a public library. All our PRATT special collection of books as all other libraries in the city are being centralized into global banking 1% hands.
The building of new libraries during this age of ROBBER BARON few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA will be those GLOBAL GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARIES and WILL be only accessed by global 1%. These are NOT public 99% libraries.
THE BUSH-ERA US DOJ/SUPREME COURT RULING IGNORED ALL US MONOPOLY LAW---IGNORED CENTURIES OF COPYRIGHT COMMON LAW----AND IGNORED ALL US FEDERAL COURT RULINGS SURROUNDING EQUAL ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR 99% OF BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS------IT WAS YET ANOTHER ILLEGAL RULING AND CAN BE VOIDED ----EASY PEASY.
BOOKS will not suddenly disappear from our US library shelves---but the goal of global banking 1% is to create GLOBAL GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY for only the global 1% while 99% of US citizens black, white, and brown citizens have NO access to EMPOWERING BOOKS.
NOW we see why global banking 1% freemason LITERARY STAR ------LOVETT and his LOST BOOK OF HOLY GRAIL tied our AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION to the global GOOGLE digitizer character.
Posted on: April 06, 2018 00
Awards
The Six Winners of the 2018 AIA/ALA Library Building Awards
Work by Koning Eizenberg Architecture, Oudens Ello Architecture, and MSR Design are among this year's winning projects.
By Sara Johnson
Tulsa City-County Central Library in Oklahoma, designed by MSR Design
Today the American Institute of Architects released the winners for the 2018 Library Building Awards, which are given in partnership with the American Library Association. This year, the jury selected six winners, located in Oklahoma, Texas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Maryland, and California.
The entries are open to any library project in the world that is open to the public, provided it was designed by an architect licensed in the United States, and this year's submissions had to have been completed in or after 2013.
The 2018 jury was comprised of chair Daria Pizzetta, FAIA, of H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture in New York City; Sara Bushong of Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio; Patrick Deaton, AIA, of the North Carolina State University Libraries, Raleigh, N.C.; Terri Luke of Wake County Public Library in Cary, N.C.; Christopher Noll, AIA, of Noll & Tam Architects in Berkeley, Calif.; and Lisa Lintner Valenzuela of Johnson County Public Library in Franklin, Ind.
_________________________________________________
Here we see our US SUPREME COURT filled with global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA judges having absolutely no tie to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION or AMERICAN LEGAL COURT PRECEDENCE OR PROCEDURE----they are all ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS-----
As we stated earlier---this SUPREME COURT ruling is ILLEGAL ----it ignores MONOPOLY/ANTI-TRUST LAWS----but especially it ignores all our 99% equal protection and opportunity/access rights and laws-----BECAUSE these few decades of ROBBER BARON global banking pols and players -----they are only working for global media corporations. So, GLOBAL GOOGLE wins because the US SUPREME COURT works for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
'A United States appeals court ruled on Friday that Google’s effort to build a digital library of millions of books was “fair use” and did not infringe on the copyrights of authors'.
What this article by global banking 1% NEW YORK TIMES does not tell US citizens is what these rulings will look like in the future. Ruling that GLOBAL GOOGLE can digitize and have a global monopoly on that digital library----means
NO BOOKS FOR 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE.....FOREVER MORE QUOTH THE RAVEN.
'In Poe’s 18-stanza poem, “The Raven,” the line, “Quoth the Raven, Nevermore,” comes in toward the middle and gets repeated, or the word “nevermore” gets repeated, in the subsequent stanzas. McGann, University Professor and John Stewart Bryan Professor of Literature, said “nevermore” and “evermore,” which Poe also uses in the poem, capture the writer’s most important idea about poetry as “mournful and never-ending remembrance.”'
Google’s Digital Library Wins Court of Appeals Ruling
By ALEXANDRA ALTER
OCT. 16, 2015
The British Library in London. Google has been building a vast digital library and has approached major research libraries about scanning and digitizing books from their collections.
Credit Paul Hackett/Reuters
A United States appeals court ruled on Friday that Google’s effort to build a digital library of millions of books was “fair use” and did not infringe on the copyrights of authors.
“The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals,” Judge Pierre N. Leval of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote, explaining the court’s decision.
The ruling affirmed a decision that was reached two years ago in a lower court. In that case, the court rejected the claims by the Authors Guild, a writers’ organization, that Google’s book scanning project is a commercial venture that violates authors’ copyrights and drives down sales by making portions of their work available online free.
This week’s court decision is the latest blow for the Authors Guild, which has been fighting Google for a decade.
A representative of the Authors Guild said the group planned to take the case to the Supreme Court.
“America owes its thriving literary culture to copyright protection,” Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild in New York, said in a statement. “We are very disheartened that the court was unable to understand the grave impact that this decision, if left standing, could have on copyright incentives and, ultimately, our literary heritage.”
Since 2004, Google has been building a vast digital library and has scanned more than 20 million books. The project began when Google approached major research libraries about scanning and digitizing books from their collections. The scanned books can be searched through the Google Books search engine, which allows readers to search books for keywords or phrases and read some snippets of text.
Google has argued that making books available to search online might actually bolster sales and introduce readers to hard-to-find and out-of-print books. In a statement, Google said: “Today’s decision underlines what people who use the service tell us: Google Books gives them a useful and easy way to find books they want to read and buy, while at the same time benefiting copyright holders. We’re pleased the court has confirmed that the project is fair use, acting like a card catalog for the digital age.”
___________________________________________
Here is our ROBBER BARON global 1% letting US 99% of people know just that -----TESLA IS KING-----only TESLA was a REAL genius scientist that would not be handling the development of his discoveries ANYWHERE near what is MOVING FORWARD by global banking 1% SHIP OF FOOLS-----TESLA would indeed be disgusted by these 5% global banking MAD HATTER players.
In the future of MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL COMMONER CORE for the 99% of US and global citizens making only MYTH-MAKING available as information we will see a return to those ancient GODS AND GODDESSES as our focus of worship and the myth-making we see today on our US national media calling ELON MUSK exceptional----a genius -----that GOD APOLLO as SUN GOD......that is what MOVING FORWARD back to DARK AGES pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA STOIC KINGS AND QUEENS looks like. CRAZY DUDES.
No doubt ELON MUSK can't believe he was handed our entire US NASA SPACE INDUSTRY patented inventions over these several decades of Federal Air and Space agencies.
What does this song mean to you?
Writers & Publishers
from the album
Forever More ·
Lyrics Terms of Use
highlight lyrics to add meaning...
Advisory - the following lyrics contain explicit language:
why say anything if it doesn't mean nothing at all
if everything you do there's something in it for you or you won't do it at all
stay away
'cause i'm all about givin' a helping hand
talk about love every chance i can
please don't misunderstand me
'cause i'm all about givin' the dog a bone
come on everybody let's get it on
come on let's get it on
all that i believe is what i'm fighting for
and i will always be this way forever more
if i stand alone i'll be here like a stone
forever, forever, forever
yes i know exactly how the story goes
it was all meant to be
but there's just too much crazy shit going on
what is wrong with me
you can call me anything you want cause i don't wanna be
just another one repeating history
please don't misunderstand me
all i do is listen to my heart as it talks to me
(doing as i wish, ah just let it bleed, let it bleed)?
all that i believe is what i'm fighting for
and i will always be this way forever more
if i stand alone i'll be here like a stone
forever, forever, forever
if i only i could change, it's too late
or maybe rearrange my mind, it's too late
if only i could cha-a-a-a-a-a-a-ange
Photos
hhTesla - artist photos
hhTesla - artist photos
hhTesla - artist photos
hhTesla - artist photos
all that i believe is what i'm fighting for
and i will always be this way forever more
if i stand alone i'll be here like a stone
forever, forever, forever
'cause all that i believe is what i'm fighting for
and i will always be this way forever more
if i stand alone i'll be here like a stone
forever, forever, forever more
___________________________________________
Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria“Somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them.”
Here we see those OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS players sold as left social progressives on digital media---digital books----writers guild protectors------always MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY for only the global 1%.
Here we see that global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Berkeley corporation always sold as LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE always partnered with far-right neo-conservative STANFORD. This lawyer tied to global GOOGLE DIGITAL LIBRARY lawsuit calls it a WIN-WIN -------he doesn't say it was a win for global banking 1% and what are that few LITERARY STARS------he doesn't say how it makes 99% of WE THE PEOPLE great big LOSERS. He doesn't even hint at the fact that these 5% players will NOT be getting what these rulings decide because TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT will NEGATE these kinds of civil awards of money.
'As Samuelson, the Berkeley law professor, put it in a paper at the time, “The proposed settlement thus looked like a win-win-win: the libraries would get access to millions of books, Google would be able to recoup its investment in GBS, and authors and publishers would get a new revenue stream from books that had been yielding zero returns'.
We see SAMUELSON is tied to what we shared yesterday as NGOs tied to WRITERS GUILD pretending to be fighting for digital book and writers' rights. All the NGOs listed below are FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT groups-----working for global 1% policies that kill 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE.
'Pamela Samuelson is recognized as a pioneer in digital copyright law, intellectual property, cyberlaw and information policy. She has written and spoken extensively about the challenges that new information technologies are posing for public policy and traditional legal regimes. Since 1996, she has held a joint appointment with the Berkeley Law School and the School of Information. She is the director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, serves on the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and on advisory boards for the Public Knowledge, and the Berkeley Center for New Media. She is also an advisor for the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic. Since 2002, she has also been an honorary professor at the University of Amsterdam'.
For our US black 99% of citizens not understanding why they are always repressed and never escape from oppression----this is it. Here is global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE HOWARD UNIVERSITY ----that global banking 1% corporation working for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS-----shouting that the policies of AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT ----I AM MAN-----that LOCKEAN left social progressive stance on civil rights and education based on NATURAL LAW not POSITIVE LAW------is a BAD THING. All this global banking 5% black player as lawyer has to say--it is EUROPEAN ergo, it is bad for our US 99% black citizens. Who benefited most from I AM MAN until CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA started their ECONOMY OF STEALING FROM THE POOR AND ECONOMIC STAGNATION OF US CITIES TO CREATE FAILED STATES? Our 99% of black and brown citizens......white citizens as well.
'But the European idea, “It’s based on natural law as opposed to positive law,” Lateef Mtima, a copyright scholar at Howard University Law School, said. “Their whole thought process is coming out of France and Hugo and those guys that like, you know, ‘My work is my enfant,’” he said, “and the state has absolutely no right to do anything with it—kind of a Lockean point of view.” '
We can always expect a global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE corporation HARVARD grad to be fighting for civil rights of global banking 1% and not 99% WE THE PEOPLE because HARVARD LAW works from the ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE CONSTITUTION-------and not our US CONSTITUTION. This is why MTIMA would denounce AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN EUROPEAN legal history ---that LOCKEAN 99% -----an fight for a DARK AGES OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS civil right to become extremely rich--extremely powerful anyway they can.
Our US 99% black citizens made to feel these AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT policies especially regarding PUBLIC EDUCATION/ACCESSING BOOKS AND REAL INFORMATION has not helped them-----look to those 5% global banking 5% players black, white, and brown citizens who SMOTHERED our thriving US domestic economy and IGNORED all civil rights and voter rights gained in 20th century as the reason the gains of US black citizens---as too our white and brown citizens is MOVING FORWARD----it is NOT our EUROPEAN AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN.
Lateef Mtima
Professor of LawJ.D., 1985, Harvard University
B.S., 1982, Amherst College
Biography
Lateef Mtima is a Professor of Law at the Howard University School of Law. After graduating with honors from Amherst College, Professor Mtima received his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School, where he was the co-founder and later editor-in-chief of the Harvard BlackLetter Journal.
He is admitted to the New York and Pennsylvania bars and has practiced intellectual property, bankruptcy, and commercial law, including a decade in private practice with the international law firm of Coudert Brothers.
Currently a member of the Advisory Council for the United States Court of Federal Claims, Professor Mtima has held the post of Distinguished Libra Visiting Scholar in Residence at the University of Maine School of Law, is a past President of the Giles S. Rich Inn of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and was a member of the founding Editorial Board for the American Bar Association intellectual property periodical Landslide.
Professor Mtima is the Founder and Director of the Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice, an accredited Non-governmental Organization Member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
RSS Feed
