In a case that sent alarms around the internet, the giant law firm had sued a startup website for supposedly impermissible linking; a judge let the suit go forward, and BlockShopper said it couldn’t afford to defend the case through trial [Alison Grant/Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ambrogi, Wendy Davis/Slate, ABA Journal, settlement agreement (PDF); earlier here, here, here, etc.]
More: Paul Alan Levy/CL&P, Ron Coleman, Sam Bayard/Citizen Media Law.
Cecilia Leibovitz in our comments section:
Today I noticed a small box of books that had been left out at the curb of a thrift shop here in Vermont. All but two were children’s books printed prior to 1985.
Feel free in comments to add your sightings, positive or negative, of what is happening in the world of kids’ resale. (More: Bookseller Nora O’Neill took six boxes’ worth of kids’ books off the shelves in her store, retail value $2,500, and is not happy about that: “Yes, Alexander, it is a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.” She also has an earlier post).
Some reactions to my coverage of the threat to pre-1985 kids’ books, both at this site and in my new opinion piece at City Journal: famed sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle (scroll to Feb. 12), Justin Taylor/Between Two Worlds, Series Books for Girls, Liberty Maven/DownsizeDC, Melissa Wiley, The Catholic Bubble, Carter Wood/ShopFloor, and Ella’s Deli. I also got a very nice note from Michael S. Hart, founder of old-text-preservation volunteer group Project Gutenberg, one of my favorite things about the Internet. And if you haven’t read Mark Bennett’s post at Defending People, linked earlier, go do so. (More: Dilettante’s Dilemma, Jeff Sypeck (test, toss, or evade?), Todd Seavey, International House of Bacon (“Again — the single worst piece of regulation in my lifetime”)).
Adapting a theme taken up by Deputy Headmistress, Love2Learn Blog has started a meme of “My Five Favorite Endangered Books” at risk of disappearing from the market under CPSIA. She makes the important point that even when pre-1985 children’s literature remains available in post-1985 reprint editions, the physical quality is often not the same: in many cases binding and paper quality is lesser, color illustrations missing or shrunken or rendered only in black and white, all of which can rob the works of their original magic. Wikipedia’s “Illustration” article is worth a look. Commenters at Common Room also suggest one group of public figures who might be prevailed upon to speak out against what the law is doing: namely, living authors of pre-1985 (and out-of-print/oop) kids’ books. It’s a group that would include some fairly big names and might get noticed in the press.
Public domain graphic: Grandma’s Graphics, Mabel Betsy Hill.
“Six prisoners in British jails are applying to give sperm to their wives and partners after a landmark European court ruling concluded that their human rights were breached if they were stopped from having children. The inmates, all serving long terms, are basing their applications on claims they will be too old to become fathers once they have finished their sentences.” [The Guardian]
The client-chasing has begun on Continental Flight 3407, ably chronicled by Eric Turkewitz.
Several bloggers have pointed to this post at Semicolon Blog which reminds us that many post-1985 children’s books are also at risk of destruction, in particular those enhanced with decorative or amusement-providing elements in materials other than paper:
My daughter works in a used bookstore. TODAY they pulled all the books from the children’s section that had any kind of metal or plastic or toy-like attachment, spiral bindings, balls or things attached, board books, anything that might be targeted under this law, and they very quietly trashed them all. I say “very quietly” because the bookstore had a meeting with employees and told them to be careful not to start a panic. If anyone asked what they were doing they were told to say that they were “rearranging their inventory.” No one was allowed to tell anyone about the new law, and no one was allowed to take any of the doomed-for-destruction books home or give them away.
It should be noted that completely plain board books would be probably considered “ordinary” and thus safe to resell under the CPSC’s guidelines so long as they contain no special texturized elements such as rubber, foil, nubbly synthetic pretend-dinosaur-skin, genuine stink bugs encased in clear plastic, etc., etc.
A lot of blogs have begun to notice the kids’ book issue, and I may round up highlights at some point. For now, start with Deputy Headmistress at Common Room;
Why stop with products “primarily” for kids? Why not test everything a kid might encounter, from sofa cushions to bathroom mirrors?
But maybe I shouldn’t say that. Public Citizen might get ideas.
I was discussing your City Journal article with someone and
they pointed out this Snopes article, which would seem to contradict
yours. I am curious about your view.
To which I wrote back:
Snopes botched it. It’s true there was an erroneous rumor going around a few weeks ago that resellers would be legally required to do lead testing. The CPSC and others corrected this and pointed out that although resellers would be liable for selling anything over the lead ppm limit, they were not legally obliged to test, that is, they could take their chances. Hence Snopes is literally correct when it points out testing is not required, but flatly misses the wider story, which is that fear of liability is by no means an imaginary phenomenon since many older items (including some books) do flunk the new standards, even if posing no material risk to kids, and reliance on CPSC enforcement forbearance is chancy, especially since the CPSC is not the only source of enforcement for the law.
Many people have written to Snopes in recent weeks asking them to correct their item, but they have done nothing.
And then I pointed him to coverage at this site and elsewhere on thrift stores’ removal of books and other merchandise that pose no risk to kids but that cannot readily be known to comply with the law.
I keep waiting for Snopes to correct, and they keep not doing so, even after the past week’s coverage of convulsions in the thrift store world. This is highly damaging because so many writers and editors check Snopes as a quick way to dismiss false alarms — I’ve done so myself many times, though I am less inclined to do so again. Is it time for someone to set up a “Shame on Snopes” page? (More: reader Meredith Wright wrote to Snopes and got a highly unsatisfactory response, reprinted in comments below);
Henry Waxman, chairman of the [House] Committee on Energy & Commerce and Bobby Rush, chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, don’t want any reasonable amendment and are refusing to allow any discussion.
They don’t want more hearings. They don’t want more talk. They want compliance. Waxman and Rush are the original sponsors of CPSIA, so you can see why they don’t want the damage they’ve caused to go on the record.
Public domain illustration: Ruth Mary Hallock, Grandma’s Graphics.
The Times (U.K.) is running a big campaign on abuses of the family court and social services system and unjustified removal of kids from their families.
Self-described as “America’s Lifestyle Coach For Health And Wellness” and “the quintessential, cutting edge fitness advocate leader”, Michael Torchia says he intends to sue Nintendo over the fitness claims it explicitly or implicitly has made for its wildly popular Wii game system, which, as Patrick at Popehat notes, is a bit of a competitor to his own services. The main success of the strained action will predictably be in drawing public attention to Mr. Torchia, a process to which, alas, we appear to be contributing with this very post.
Image courtesy ShopFloor.
The big-shot Stuart, Fla. injury lawyer, who’s provided this site with a steady source of material over the years, apparently isn’t going to be prime Cabinet nominee material any time soon given his run-ins with tax authorities.