View Single Post
Old 12-28-2011, 08:48 AM   #20
pdurrant
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
pdurrant's Avatar
 
Posts: 74,102
Karma: 315558332
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Oasis
Reading the complaint, it seems that the contract granted exclusive rights to publish the book "in book form".

Another paragraph, paragraph 20 of the contract, restricts Harper Collins' rights to sub-license the work without George's consent, and that this restriction extends to "computer, computer-stored, mechanical or other electronic means now known or hereafter invented"

Harper Collins are bringing this case to try to make case law that old contracts made well before electronic books that include the words "in book form" should now be interpreted to include ebooks, meaning that they won't have to negotiate new contracts with any of their old authors.

They are trying to support this argument by drawing attention to a clause that limits their ability to sub-license the work in other forms.

I very much hope that they lose the case. I don't see any way in which you could interpret the words of a 1971 contract "in book form" to include ebooks.

Last edited by pdurrant; 12-29-2011 at 04:06 AM.
pdurrant is offline   Reply With Quote