It's not a frivolous issue or a shortsighted one. There are pages of licensing clauses in any book contract, and all can potentially earn money for the author. Nothing about the advent of new technology says that authors have to give up all that money without any fight.
My book is available free at Bookshare. (http://www.bookshare.org/ Accessible Books and Periodicals for Readers with Print Disabilities) I'll be giving a talk to their science fiction group next month. But I have a signed agreement with them licensing the book for their readership. I did not intend for the rights to be made generally available for the taking. Why shouldn't I get to decide that? The first sale doctrine presumably does not apply due to 17 U.S.C. section 121 of the Copyright Act that allows designated charitable organizations to provide copyrighted materials in specialized formats to qualified people with disabilities. Bookshare could technically make books available under this clause without license, but they ran into vocal protest early on in their existence and have gone the sensible route of getting signed licenses. Needless to say, Amazon and its readership do not qualify under any sense of this section. I don't see any reading of section 121 that would allow Bookshare or its members to pass on those rights. All that being said, what is the line? What is the current law? I'm trying to find out from the lawyers in SFWA. I'm not sure there is any applicable cases, but we'll see. Unless some law already directly applies, a most unlikely event, a battle will and should be waged. This isn't the Oklahoma territory. Those getting there first don't get to decide ownership. Amazon does not get these rights by default because it has incorporated a certain bit of technology in its products. Rights are fought over because they are valuable. A PR campaign is a lot cheaper than a lawsuit and it makes sense for the Authors Guild to fire a first shot with no cost to itself. It's too early for me to have a definitive opinion on this. I'm just beginning to learn what the issues are. I am leaning toward the opinion that Amazon took a step too far and took rights that belong to me just because they could. That creates a precedent that would allow everyone to take another licensing right from me just because they could. Why shouldn't I and every writers group fight that? I hardly consider that stupid or insulting. Maybe in the end I'll come around to approve this, but the question is supposed to be asked first and not after a multi-billion dollar corporation grabs the money. Steve --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
