Harper Lee battling in court for copyright

[SteveEisenberg]

If the original US copyright scheme (14 years with one 14 year renewal) still applied, there would be no lawsuit against her agent (or, at least, not this lawsuit), and there would be an eBook. Plus, financial pressures, from not getting any royalties since 1989, might have overcome her apparent writer's block.

[kennyc]

Yes and if people in hell could get icewater....

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by curtw

I'm guessing that your location of "26 kly from Sgr A*" is not in the USA.

You'd be guessing wrong.
And since the discussion is senior citizen access to the book, many of who were out of school when it was first published, it is rather irrelevant how many pimply faced teens dozed through english class with their noses in it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And if one particular book is unavailable, there are plenty of others. There is no obligation by an author to make their books available globally and to anyone who wants them.

Didn't say it was.
Merely that it would be to *her* benefit to meet the demand. And, in fact, it sounds like she *has* changed her tune. That appears to be what triggered the events leading to the lawsuit.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes and if people in hell could get icewater....

It would turn to steam before they could drink it.
It's *hot* down there.

(Brimstone burns at 478-511F)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Large-print books are larger and heavier than regular hardbacks or paperbacks. Larger size and more weight are concerns for those who have gripping problems. One font size does not fit all; sometimes the font in a large-type book is either too large or not large enough.

Font size variation, font type variation (sans vs serif), lower weight, no pages to tear with shaky hands, no dust allergies... there are a lot of reasons, tied to a lot of conditions, why ebooks can be the difference between reading and not-reading.

By not allowing ebook versions, authors are saying to a segment of their potential customer base that they are neither relevant nor necessary.

Indeed. I always read "my books should be read in print" as "If your hands and eyes aren't strong enough for the formatting my publisher has chosen, you're not my intended audience anyway; I don't need your money and don't want your approval."

To those authors I would say, if you don't need me then I don't need you, and when someone ultimately scans and uploads your book, I'll feel no sympathy when you cry publicly about it.

There's even a (slight) legal precedent for this: the Sony v. Tenenbaum decision (about torrenting, defendant solidly lost), included the following:

the Court was prepared to consider a more expansive fair use argument than other courts have credited -- perhaps one supported by facts specific to this individual and this unique period of rapid technological change. For example, file sharing for the purposes of sampling music prior to purchase or space-shifting to store purchased music more efficiently might offer a compelling case for fair use. Likewise, a defendant who used the new file-sharing networks in the technological interregnum before digital media could be purchased legally, but who later shifted to paid outlets, might also be able to rely on the defense.

Emphasis added. If there is no legitimate digital version, it may be fair use to download a bootleg.

The concurring opinion in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin--"The Wind Done Gone" case-- says "The law grants copyright holders a powerful monopoly in their expressive works. It should not also afford them windfall damages for the publication of the sorts of works that they themselves would never publish, or worse, grant them a power of indirect censorship."

Originally Posted by kennyc

And if one particular book is unavailable, there are plenty of others. There is no obligation by an author to make their books available globally and to anyone who wants them.

Not quite true; the right to convert books for accessibility reasons is part of ADA law. This includes books with no authorized digital version. The author is not required to make them available, but nor is she allowed to prevent them from existing, if someone else takes on the conversion work.

[Ken Maltby]

Just reading this thread; I have the impression that it was the, less than ethical, agent
who turned down any ebook publication. As he is presumed to represent the wishes of
the author, it would be logical for others to assume the position he was taking to be that
of the author - given the law suite....

Luck;
Ken

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

....ooks with no authorized digital version[/URL]. The author is not required to make them available, but nor is she allowed to prevent them from existing, if someone else takes on the conversion work.

as I said. What I said IS CORRECT.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Just reading this thread; I have the impression that it was the, less than ethical, agent who turned down any ebook publication.

Here's the context for the Harper Lee May 2006 quote BeccaPrice provided in #9:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/10...oft-pages.html

. . . in an abundant society where people have laptops, cell phones, iPods, and minds like empty rooms, I still plod along with books. Instant information is not for me. I prefer to search library stacks because when I work to learn something, I remember it.

And, Oprah, can you imagine curling up in bed to read a computer? Weeping for Anna Karenina and being terrified by Hannibal Lecter, entering the heart of darkness with Mistah Kurtz, having Holden Caulfield ring you up — some things should happen on soft pages, not cold metal.

The above was written about four months before the Sony Reader was released, but there's no evidence she has changed her mind.

I've said that copyright is too long, but I still support it. If the author wants to make his or her book hard to obtain, or hard to read, I disagree, but would allow it.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I've said that copyright is too long, but I still support it. If the author wants to make his or her book hard to obtain, or hard to read, I disagree, but would allow it.

The authors and publishers who do this, however, are not just making their book hard to read. They are making their book disproportionately hard to read for people with disabilities. Making your product, service, or premises disproportionately difficult to access for PWD, without an unreasonable hardship defence, is dodgy ground both morally and legally.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by meeera

Making your product, service, or premises disproportionately difficult to access for PWD, without an unreasonable hardship defence, is dodgy ground both morally and legally.

Is it then legally dodgy to not offer a large print edition? I don't know about Australia, but I doubt there is a problem in the US.

Also, To Kill a Mockingbird is available as a protected Daisy if the disabled person has the key from the Library of Congress:

http://openlibrary.org/books/ia:toki...kingbird/daisy

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Here's the context for the Harper Lee May 2006 quote BeccaPrice provided in #9:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/10...oft-pages.html



The above was written about four months before the Sony Reader was released, but there's no evidence she has changed her mind.

I've said that copyright is too long, but I still support it. If the author wants to make his or her book hard to obtain, or hard to read, I disagree, but would allow it.

I don't equate that charming reminisce of her early reading experience and
a loving appreciation for the micro-culture she grew up in, with a reluctance
to epublish. She certainly expressed her preference for pbooks and explained
where it may have come from, but while old people may have a nostalgic
fondness for how things were in their youth, they - above all others - realize
that times have changed.

Luck;
Ken

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Unless there's some sort of negotiating ploy, I just don't see the point of an author wanting to limit access this way.

Because that's the whole point of copyright: to permit the author to have control of who publishes the book, when, and in what format. We don't have to agree with the author's decision (and personally I think that not releasing ebooks is a poor business decision) but we should respect that the choice is the author's to make, regardless of whether or not we agree with it.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because that's the whole point of copyright: to permit the author to have control of who publishes the book, when, and in what format. We don't have to agree with the author's decision (and personally I think that not releasing ebooks is a poor business decision) but we should respect that the choice is the author's to make, regardless of whether or not we agree with it.

So, has it been established that the Author not the Agent that the Author
is suing for not properly representing her interests, is the one who has
decided not to accept epublishing offers? I thought that it was the Agent's
turning down such an offer, and the publisher mentioning it to the author,
that sparked the lawsuit.

Luck;
Ken

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because that's the whole point of copyright: to permit the author to have control of who publishes the book, when, and in what format. ...

I thought it was "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...".