View Single Post
Old 04-24-2012, 07:29 PM   #18
taustin
Wizard
taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres View Post
The whole thing is untested in court because *author* contracts usually specify much higher royalties when their books are licensed to a third party.
Right now the publishers are telling authors ebooks are sales (and paying them that way) while telling readers they are licenses.
Sooner or later that double talk is going to get tested.
While that's all true, it is not relevant to the discussion of wether or not John Q. Public buying an ebook from Amazon (or B&N, or whoever) is a purchase or a license. The relevant ruling in California is Softman v. Adobe, and it's very clear.
taustin is offline   Reply With Quote