View Single Post
Old 12-28-2011, 09:28 AM   #23
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: 73,994
Karma: 315160596
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Oasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by howyoudoin View Post
If the court rules that "book form" includes ebooks, could Amazon (as an example) then argue that they have the right to treat ebooks as the same as physical books, and therefore discount them like they do with physical books? Pardon me if this seems like a silly question.
It's not silly at all. There a great big can of worms yet to be opened in this area.

Publishers argue that customers aren't buying ebooks, just licensing them

But most publishing contracts state that the author's cut of any licensing fee is 50%.

So if ebooks really are licensed, not sold, then authors ought to be getting 50% of the publisher's cut of the sale price.

There's already a case on this exact point in the music industry. And the music industry lost. Of course, the exact wording of the contracts is important.

Last edited by pdurrant; 12-28-2011 at 09:31 AM.
pdurrant is offline   Reply With Quote