No need to apologize. it’s one of the “curses” of having a public persona: new people showing up here, Facebook, Twitter, Crydee, etc. asking the old questions.
I do find it a tiny bit annoying that the Face book culture seems to presume that if you find someone you want to follow or friend, you only start reading from that moment, rather than track back some old messages, but maybe that’s just me being the old Bulletin Board guy from the 1980s. Best, R.E.F. > On Jun 6, 2015, at 4:02 PM, TW <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for explaining! I do apologize for bringing up the topic as I am > new to this group. > > T. > > > >> On Jun 6, 2015, at 18:37, Raymond Feist <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 6, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Richard Williamson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Note: I have an MBA, I am not a lawyer. I'm looking at this from the >>> business aspects, not the legal. They look similar, though :) This is >>> just a general discussion, I don't know anything specific about the >>> situation. >>> >>> Probably you won't get an answer from Ray, because if it is under dispute, >>> there's probably lawyers involved. >>> >>> The thing about contracts before a certain era (ie, before people were >>> talking about electronic versions of books), those contracts probably >>> didn't have anything in them that dealt with the rights to an electronic >>> version. "Electronic versions" are never mentioned, because there was no >>> such thing. >>> >>> Time passes, and now, o look, electronic versions are a thing. >>> >>> In this case, the contract Party A (the author) will argue that "it wasn't >>> mentioned, ergo you didn't buy those rights", while the contract Party B >>> (the publisher) will argue that "it wasn't specifically mentioned as a >>> separate right, ergo it is covered by the general rights we purchased". >>> >>> Now, consider a case where the rights have reverted, because a book didn't >>> sell, or it was specifically called out in the contract... then it isn't a >>> problem. The author can get a new contract with whomever, for both print >>> and electronic, or just electronic versions. >>> >>> In the case where a book has been in continual print for over 30 years, and >>> there are no time clauses, then the rights might not revert to the author. >>> This is/was the general behavior of contract clauses on rights, that the >>> rights revert after the book is no longer in print. >>> >>> Publishers are leery of just saying "ok, yeah, e-versions are yours", >>> because that could be used as precedent, and make it more difficult for >>> them in any other similar case. >>> >>> rip >> >> I’m not being coy, just sort of tired of explaining it. rip is correct, >> it’s rights that pre-dated ebooks. Our contention is and always has and >> always will stem from one line that every one of my contracts has it it, >> what I think of as my “specificity clause.” It states, “All rights not >> expressly granted here within reside with Author.” Random House thinks >> otherwise. As we are a legacy from them buying Bantam-Doubleday-Dell, we and >> many other authors are trying to get this resolved without litigation. >> >> Best, R.E.F. >> >> >> > >
