> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > > They don't want to control your right to read, they want to uphold an >> author's right to prohibit certain types of reuse. I hope the >> demonstrators, as well as both sides of the debate, grok the >> distinction. > >
There are two main problems though. #1 is that the Kindle was advertised as having this feature, we all expected it, the hardware supports it, and it was taken away *after* it was enabled from the release. This wasn't what Amazon said was going to be the case. It's a serious change in the device, and probably a big reason why the blind would have an interest in an ebook reader in general. #2 Is it really a derivative? Suppose I scoured youtube and created a script that would play certain sections of videos one after another in sequence, which when listened to had the words for Cory Doctorow's book Little Brother. Now, Cory Doctorow is a pretty nice guy, and would probably post it to his blog, but is what I have created a derivative of his book? I didn't use any of the material, and you are only watching/listening to videos that have been synced, not edited. Is the script a derivative of Doctorow's book? Is it a derivative of the original vidoes? Isn't this much like what happens when the Kindle "reads" it scours for prerecorded sounds and slaps them together on the fly. I for one am not convinced a program, hardware, or script constitutes a true derivative work. I'm sure many will disagree.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
