Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
I think their expectation is that most of their titles will lose money.
Now, it also is their expectation that a few unexpected bestsellers will make up for that. So I guess that what you write above is true in spirit, even if not literally.
But that still doesn't mean they think a freedom-to-quote legal battle will be profitable.
Random House parent Bertelsmann is mostly owned by the non-profit Bertelsmann Foundation. When, in a previous thread, I described Bertelsmann itself as non-profit, one of our German posters wrote something to the effect of this just being a tax dodge. I can't refute that. But, in this case, it seems to me that they are probably about to pay legal bills for which there is little chance of getting the money back.
Suppose the editor and author were to cave in, cutting the direct quotation of copyrighted materials. Would this really lower sales of the book? Probably a bit, as the reviews could be a little less glowing. But such an effect would be small.
Someone could speculate that their real concern is to discourage the heirs of other political figures -- say, American presidents -- from following the Goebbels family example, causing artistic damage to biographies with higher potential sales. If so, this is a wonderful example of enlightened self-interest.
Random House could instead pay off people who sue to stop fair use. This isn't likely to be true for smaller publishers and self-publishers, to whom a Random House standing up for freedom to read principles is a gift.
|
Why is this about fair use? Random House contractually agreed to pay, then decided not to. This has nothing to do with fair use, and everything to do with breach of contract.
Shari