Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
It's a good thing you aren't a lawyer. 
Paragraph 20 of the complaint quotes directly from Paragraph 20 of the contract. According to HC, the contract explicitly extends HC's rights to "computer, computer-stored, mechanical or other electronic means now known or hereafter invented."
If in fact the contract referenced those rights as HC suggests, this is very different than other contracts which did not reference electronic or digital media at all -- as was more common until the 90s.
And yet again, there is absolutely no way to know what the contract actually says without seeing the whole thing. You can read it however you want, but unless you have actually read it, you're just speculating. |
I think that you are the one mis-reading the complaint. Paragraph 20 of the complaint
claims that paragraph 20 of the contract "further makes clear" what Harper Collins' rights are under the contract
But since it
is made clear in paragraph 21 of the complaint that paragraph 20 of the contract is only concerned with limiting Harper Collins' rights to license the work to others, it's hard to see how it can grant any rights to Harper Collins at all.
I do agree that it would be helpful to have the full text of the contract.
I think it is significant that Harper Collins do
not quote an explicit grant of rights to publication "through computer, computer-stored, mechanical or other electronic means now known or hereafter invented". In fact, the only explicit grant of rights they quote from the contract is "in book form". In 1971, "in book form" could only mean in paperback and hardback.
Bearing in mind that this complaint obviously puts things in the very best light from Harper Collins point of view, I think their case is very weak.