Chinese Authors Mull Action Over Google Book Settlement

A Chinese authors' group is considering legal action against Google over its book scanning project, adding to the list of countries where it has faced opposition.

[Dump The Wires]

I think that it is a shame that authors and writers have to "opt out" of having their work pirated away from their control.

If authors and writers have to "opt out" of being ripped off then that totally voids any and all copyright laws.

What's next, in order for banks to be protected by police and guards they have to opt out of being robbed?

The woman walking down the street has to opt out of being raped?

[Dump The Wires]

Laws mean nothing and have no value whatsoever when you have to opt out of being a victim of what the law says that you are already protected from what you have to opt out of.

If anyone has to opt out of having their legal rights violated in order to have or to keep those legal rights intact then there is no such thing as legal rights apart from words written on paper and anyone can violate you or your property in any way and do it legally because you never opted out of being a victim.

[Dump The Wires]

In order to not be a victim you have to opt out of being a victim.

Opt out with who?

You have to opt out with the very source that wishes to violate your property.

Why do you have to opt out?

Because the one who wishes to violate your property is saying that they can legally do that because you did not sign on the dotted line proclaiming that you don't want to be victimized by them.

Under circumstances such as this, criminal intent is in total control of the situation compared to existing legal rights and existing laws being in control.

[Dump The Wires]

Another good example is with entities that you do business with that possess personal information about you.

The very existence of any "opt out" option should be illegal as a $3 bill.

Why?

Because the very existence of an "op out" option states very clearly that the one offering you an opt out deal is clearly stating that somehow they are outside of respecting any existing laws and that you have no pre-existing legal right to privacy.

Such interests will readily admit that you have an inalienable right to privacy on the other side of the street but not on their side. On their side you only have a right to privacy if you opt out of being violated.

On that premise, if you do not opt out of having your right to privacy violated,(strangely enough) they can disseminate your personal information to anyone they wish for any reason be it your name and address along with your likes and dislikes to any other source to send you a pile of junk mail. Then once the third party gets the information it just keeps going until you need to keep a garbage can beside the mailbox.

When you have to make a deal with those who wish to violate you and your legal rights and violate property that you own, laws mean nothing, subversives are in control.

They in themselves act like communist states who own everything in the state in the absence of private property laws.

A car thief in most cases does not know who owns the car but the owner of the vehicle does not have to have an opt out agreement with the local chop shop or street gang.

A unknown and anonymous person owns the car just like an unknown and anonymous person owns a literary piece of work. It is the same private property laws that protect the unknown author that protects the absent owner of the vehicle sitting in a parking lot.

If the police see someone smashing out the window of that car the car will protect the interests of that unknown and anonymous person who owns the vehicle and for laws to be laws and rights to be rights, the same laws apply to piece of literary work as much as it does the car.

How can the car be considered private property when the owner is unknown but a book is not private property when no one knows who wrote it or knows the whereabouts of the author?

The thief doesn't know who owns the car or where the owner is but they will be flat busted for grand theft auto but strangely enough an entity that does not know who wrote any particular work or doesn't know the whereabouts of the name on the work can summarily take it and endlessly duplicate it and hand it out to anyone that requests a copy of it.

Imaging the car thief in court saying that he didn't commit a crime because the owner did not place their name on the car or place a note on the car of where they would be while away from the car or that he is justified in taking the car because he didn't have access to the license plate data base to establish the identity of the owner.

He would be laughed straight into a jail cell if not a mental hospital.

A book pirate? Hey, perfectly legal. Just put it on a computer server and make copies for anyone who wants to download it.

The anonymous car and book are protected by the same private property laws but compare the power and financial resources possessed by the car thief to the power and financial resources of those who wish to summarily take and possess other peoples writings.

[Dump The Wires]

I think it may have been Al Capone who invented the concept of "opt out". Since he as good as controlled Chicago, how many people and business' had to opt out of having their property victimized by him or his henchman? His turf was so wide spread that he never met or knew those people that were being subjugated did he? No. Did that make it any more legal than it was illegal because the violated people were anonymous to him and he knew not their address? No.

Existing law meant to protect the interests of the people meant nothing under his opt out of getting your kneecaps busted scheme.

The legal right to privacy and private property rights, regardless if the intended usurper knows the identity of their intended victims or not, were long in effect before someone wiped all that off of the legal landscape with the notion of opting out of being violated.

Unless amended or otherwise legally altered, legal rights and laws are immutable as it is applied to the known, unknown and the anonymous person(s).

Any person not carrying identification has not lost any legal rights or privacy have they? No. Can anyone just do to them as they please because they aren't carrying ID? No.

The bike thief sees a bike laying at the store, it has no name on it nor does the thief know the owner, he takes it, busted.

Why does this not apply to a book while the author is away? The book is their legal property isn't it? Yes. Why is it legal to summarily possess and mass copy the book until some circumstance comes along and a book owner finds out that the law has been subverted and that his rights have been subverted but the one doing as they wish with the book, when the author complains are not prosecuted for summarily doing what they wanted with someone else's property?

The bike thief cannot legally summarily take the bike and use it until the owner finds out can they? No.

The book and the bike are the same property.

Have we no longer any legal right to be secure in our possessions?

Apparently not since if they can do it with your book what else of yours will they do it to? Just how far will op out go?

Anyone giving the book usurper the green like to usurp books is in essence making the as good as statement that they own the book by giving such permissions to the book usurper aren't they? Only the owner of the book can legally give such permissions right? The permission giver and the book usurper are both guilty of the same thing when the permission giver had no legal standing to give such permissions. That in itself is conspiracy.

What would happen if the mayor and chief of police if they said that it was now OK for anyone to take unlocked bicycles until the unknown and anonymous owner finds the one who took it and opts out of being high jacked or saying that is OK for tow truck rivers to help themselves to cars in parking lots and city streets?

A book is no different, it is private property regardless of the physical location of the book or the owner.

The concept and application of "opt out" has no redeeming qualities but then again what racket does?

If no money changes hands it still is just as much of a racket isn't it?