Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
Reading the complaint, it seems that the contracted granted exclusive rights to publish the book "in book form".
|
Re-read the complaint.
"Paragraph 20 of the agreement further makes clear that the scope of HarperCollins publishing rights extends to exploitation of the work 'through computer, computer-stored, mechanical or other electronic means now known or hereafter invented.' "
It is an additional stipulation (in the same paragraph) that HC needs the author's permission prior to releasing an electronic version.
Again this is fairly unusual for a 1971 contract, so it's still unclear who really has what rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pdurrant
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...
|
They may eventually do something like that, but that is not their argument in this particular case.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pdurrant
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.
|
I can see plenty of ways, and at least some of them will depend on the specific wording of the contract. An explicit contract, of course, is always preferable.
By the way, let's keep in mind that Open Road is hardly a scrappy outsider; it's a startup from a former CEO of HarperCollins.
In fact, I really can't see any particular reason to side with one over the other in this case. The real question -- in fact, the only question -- is what is in the contracts.