Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
The new law deals with works that were published as recently as 2001 -- i.e. 11 years ago.
It's not a duration issue.
|
Well, it is partly - it does refer to works published before 2001, but as the blog linked to in the article makes clear, only if they're not currently being distributed or currently published in a printed or electronic form. In other words, they're out of print. The same situation described in the thread by vice-versa still stands - the author[s] of a book must not be less than the amount paid to the publisher. So it's not really the land grab for authors' rights that the Register is making it out to be - it might be that in the case of a book that didn't make it big in print that an author might actually benefit.
OTOH, that very interesting blog does make it clear that are enough issues about it that authors should be very wary indeed. For instance, even though the author can't be paid less than the publisher, it seems that the publisher might be paid twice - once through royalties, and once through these payments, and the payment organisation will also cream off some of the profits. More importantly, it seems the authors won't be given any warning that their book has been entered onto the database, and I'm sure most authors have more to do than check it every day on the off-chance that this has happened.