Comments on: War over e-books heats up

By: Peter C

Peter C — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:04:44 +0000

E-books will be $5.99 soon, and $2.99 within two years. The only people who will be making any money on digital ‘content’ will be those who make and sell the devices. Apple’s already established the paradigm, folks.

By: Theresa M. Moore

Theresa M. Moore — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:03:38 +0000

Random House does not own any rights unless the author signs them away, and only in the publishing contract. If RH sues, it will only damage its reputation as a credible publisher. Browbeating an author and his choice of epublisher into submission is going to accomplish that even more, and any judge worth his salt will dismiss the suit as frivolous. US copyright rules state that the author of “the work” retains all copyrights in ANY form until 70 years after his death or his estate releases them to a third party. It does not distinguish between books and ebooks. Therefore, RH is wrong to appeal something which has been understood clearly for the last decade. It will lose.

By: nkkingston

nkkingston — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:15:57 +0000

It think it’s means “rights” rather than “copyright”. Only scammers and the ignorant asked to buy copyright. The point still stands though: any rights other than those explicitly sold to the publisher remain with the author. Unfortunately, RH is so big that it can afford to sue people into silence over the issue; Rosetta was forced to settle with them before they ran out of money. The trade publishers aren’t exsactly rolling in it these days, but they can afford suits like this without bankrupting themselves, which is more than the e-startups can. I’m sure they’d argue they can’t afford not to without risk of bankrupting themselves!

By: angel guerra

angel guerra — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:53:49 +0000

NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:18:12 +0000

“The ruling, upheld on appeal, found that copyright for books that were written before digital publishing existed remained with the author.”

Presumably this is an inaccurate rendering of the ruling. Copyright always rests with the author, unless the author has outright sold the copyright, which is unusual except in freelancing. What they presumably mean to say is that electronic publishing rights remained with the author.

As to the trend cutting “publishers out of the process”, it would be more accurate to say that new electronic publishers are arising – Amazon, and Google for example. These companies are setting themselves up as gigantic international publishers and are shutting other publishers (who mainly deal in print) out of the electronic publishing game.