Quote:
Originally Posted by legaleagll
After reading starrigger's blog entry, I think he presented a totally different position. Rather than relying on copyright, he suggests that there are existing contracts governing the use and rights of the author. Without having the ability to read the contracts, I wouldn't know whether they cover this eventuality, but I would absolutely say that they could put a provision in a contract with Amazon regarding what they are permitted to do with the work, regardless of copyright law, that could limit what they do with regard to text to speech. It is only his purporting to rely upon copyright that I think is the fatal flaw in the position as I have previously seen it articulated.
|
Responding to this and to your previous post in one go. I'd
love to hear you debate this with the AG lawyers, because you're discussing this at one level beyond my depth.
But yes, in the interview cited, Aiken put more emphasis on copyright. In his discussion with me, he put it more on existing contracts (and the AG, I'm sure, sees many contracts because they invite members to submit them for review). I think you're probably right that he's trying to spin it from various directions, and not being entirely clear. That's why I quoted earlier the one place in the interview where he really referred to the book contracts rather than to the copyright issue. That part made more sense to me.
I don't think anyone wants to stop the use of this technology. It's more about who has the right to have what money flowing in their direction.