From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:44:03 -0800

Dave:

I believe you have summarized the situation accurately.

One point I would like to make:  no two contracts are alike.
Sometimes a publisher may have 2 contracts (for two books) with the
same author, and the contracts may be different.  I am not sure if
there is anything generalizable to be made of these cases.

Most of the contracts I have seen over the years (a fair number, but
hardly definitive) have a clause that grants the publisher the rights
to "mechanical reproduction."  Apparently this phrase began to slip
into contracts in the 1950s to address photocopying.  Some publishers
have asserted that this phrase covers computers.

Much to argue over on this issue, and people will argue, but it does
in the end seem to me to be a contract dispute, not a broader issue of
copyright.

Joe Esposito


On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:07 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Hansen, Dave" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:58:20 +0000
>
> I recently saw news that Harper Collins had filed suit against Open
> Road Media. This case was filed over the holidays and raises the issue
> of whether older author-publisher contracts cover e-books rights. It
> seems to revisit the issue that was raised by Random House v. Rossetta
> Books back in 2002 (see
> http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Random_House_v._Rosetta_Books). This is
> the post I saw on the Harper Collins case :
> http://mhpbooks.com/46575/pandoras-box-about-to-be-reopened-harpercollins-sues-its-ex-ceo/
>
> Does anyone know anything more about this?
>
> -----
>
> David R. Hansen
> Digital Library Fellow
> Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
> UC Berkeley School of Law
> [log in to unmask]