Greg Beato, Reason; Copy Fight: A new front opens in the battle over online copyright infringement:
"Since 2003, Clayton Cramer, an author and historian who has written numerous books on the right to keep and bear arms and the evolution of America’s gun culture, has edited a website that is currently called The Armed Citizen. With the help of another contributor, David Burnett, Cramer uses the site as a repository for newspaper articles that document instances where firearms owners use their weapons in self-defense. Over the years, the pair had posted excerpts and complete text of approximately 4,700 articles, and in doing so, they created a unique and useful archive for researchers, activists, and people who simply enjoy feel-good tales of homeowners protecting themselves and their property from intruders and assailants by any means necessary.
In all that time, they say, they’d never received a single request from a copyright owner to remove an article. Last week, however, Cramer and Burnett were caught off-guard by a figure who aims to establish himself as the new sheriff in the lawless wilds of cyberspace. He was packing a .36 caliber copyright infringement lawsuit and he didn’t bother with a warning shot. Instead, Cramer and Burnett only learned they were being sued after a reporter from the Las Vegas Sun contacted them about the case.
The man who brought the suit against The Armed Citizen is named Steve Gibson. He’s the founder of a company called Righthaven. Righthaven’s business model involves acquiring the copyrights for specific articles originally published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, then filing lawsuits against website owners who have posted those articles without permission. In March, it filed its first lawsuit against a New Jersey company called MoneyReign."
http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/27/copy-fight
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Day of the Jackal; Economist, Prospero Blog, 7/27/10
Economist, Prospero Blog; The Day of the Jackal:
"ANDREW WYLIE is a famously shrewd literary agent, having acquired his nickname, “The Jackal”, as a result of his ability to negotiate unusually large advances from publishers for the authors he represents. Not surprisingly, this has helped him build up a roster of clients that includes many leading writers (he represents, among others, Salman Rushdie, Philip Roth, the estate of John Updike and several Economist writers, including the editor). So Mr Wylie’s announcement last week of a deal with Amazon to publish electronic versions of books by several of his authors has understandably been viewed by the traditional publishers that he will bypass as a declaration of war.
Mr Wylie is starting by publishing electronic versions of some classics, such as Mr Roth’s “Portnoy’s Complaint” and Updike’s “Rabbit” novels. Some publishers argue that they own the electronic rights to such classics, under contracts signed before anyone thought there would be electronic books—an ownership claim that authors and their agents vigorously dispute. Random House, one of the giants of book publishing, reacted to Mr Wylie’s move by announcing that it now regards the Wylie Agency as a competitor, and that “Random House on a worldwide basis will not be entering into any new English-language business agreements with the Wylie Agency until this situation is resolved.” Random House’s move was backed by HarperCollins UK, a book-publishing division of News Corp.
Not surprisingly, authors are rallying behind Mr Wylie. On July 26th the Authors Guild issued a statement arguing that “to a large extent, publishers have brought this on themselves.” In particular, in contracts for works produced since agents started discussing royalties for electronic books, publishers have at most been willing to offer authors 25% of net revenues on e-books, compared with the typical 50% split for printed books.
The Authors Guild predicts that low e-book royalties will not last, and publishers are simply playing for time, taking their extra margin while they can. But with Amazon revealing last week that it sold more e-books than hardbacks in its latest quarter, authors will care increasingly about their cut from e-books than from print—and their market power will surely prevail. Marjorie Scardino, the boss of Pearson, a firm which owns several book publishers, including Penguin (and is also part-owner of The Economist), said on July 26th that eventually “we will see a rise in royalty rates.”
Still, Mr Wylie’s move may also give authors some grounds for disquiet, as an agent publishing works by those authors he represents gives rise to obvious potential conflicts of interest. As the Authors Guild points out, “a major agency starting a publishing company is weird, no matter how you look at it. This sort of weirdness will only multiply, however, as long as authors don't share fairly in the rewards of electronic publishing. Publishers seeking to manage this transition well should cut authors in appropriately.”
Publishing houses tempted to keep dragging their feet should consider the possibility that they risk losing more than just having to give up a further 25% of net revenues: e-books are fast coming to represent a big share of writers' income (on July 27th Amazon said Stieg Larsson, author of the bestselling "Millennium Trilogy" had become the first writer to sell 1m copies on its Kindle e-reader), and if dealing directly with big e-book sellers like Amazon proves successful, many writers may start to ask themselves whether they still need to sign up with traditional publishers at all."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2010/07/andrew_wylies_publishing_deal_amazon
"ANDREW WYLIE is a famously shrewd literary agent, having acquired his nickname, “The Jackal”, as a result of his ability to negotiate unusually large advances from publishers for the authors he represents. Not surprisingly, this has helped him build up a roster of clients that includes many leading writers (he represents, among others, Salman Rushdie, Philip Roth, the estate of John Updike and several Economist writers, including the editor). So Mr Wylie’s announcement last week of a deal with Amazon to publish electronic versions of books by several of his authors has understandably been viewed by the traditional publishers that he will bypass as a declaration of war.
Mr Wylie is starting by publishing electronic versions of some classics, such as Mr Roth’s “Portnoy’s Complaint” and Updike’s “Rabbit” novels. Some publishers argue that they own the electronic rights to such classics, under contracts signed before anyone thought there would be electronic books—an ownership claim that authors and their agents vigorously dispute. Random House, one of the giants of book publishing, reacted to Mr Wylie’s move by announcing that it now regards the Wylie Agency as a competitor, and that “Random House on a worldwide basis will not be entering into any new English-language business agreements with the Wylie Agency until this situation is resolved.” Random House’s move was backed by HarperCollins UK, a book-publishing division of News Corp.
Not surprisingly, authors are rallying behind Mr Wylie. On July 26th the Authors Guild issued a statement arguing that “to a large extent, publishers have brought this on themselves.” In particular, in contracts for works produced since agents started discussing royalties for electronic books, publishers have at most been willing to offer authors 25% of net revenues on e-books, compared with the typical 50% split for printed books.
The Authors Guild predicts that low e-book royalties will not last, and publishers are simply playing for time, taking their extra margin while they can. But with Amazon revealing last week that it sold more e-books than hardbacks in its latest quarter, authors will care increasingly about their cut from e-books than from print—and their market power will surely prevail. Marjorie Scardino, the boss of Pearson, a firm which owns several book publishers, including Penguin (and is also part-owner of The Economist), said on July 26th that eventually “we will see a rise in royalty rates.”
Still, Mr Wylie’s move may also give authors some grounds for disquiet, as an agent publishing works by those authors he represents gives rise to obvious potential conflicts of interest. As the Authors Guild points out, “a major agency starting a publishing company is weird, no matter how you look at it. This sort of weirdness will only multiply, however, as long as authors don't share fairly in the rewards of electronic publishing. Publishers seeking to manage this transition well should cut authors in appropriately.”
Publishing houses tempted to keep dragging their feet should consider the possibility that they risk losing more than just having to give up a further 25% of net revenues: e-books are fast coming to represent a big share of writers' income (on July 27th Amazon said Stieg Larsson, author of the bestselling "Millennium Trilogy" had become the first writer to sell 1m copies on its Kindle e-reader), and if dealing directly with big e-book sellers like Amazon proves successful, many writers may start to ask themselves whether they still need to sign up with traditional publishers at all."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2010/07/andrew_wylies_publishing_deal_amazon
Monday, July 26, 2010
Apple loses big in DRM ruling: jailbreaks are "fair use"; ArsTechnica.com, 7/26/10
Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; Apple loses big in DRM ruling: jailbreaks are "fair use":
"Every three years, the Library of Congress has the thankless task of listening to people complain about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA forbade most attempts to bypass the digital locks on things like DVDs, music, and computer software, but it also gave the Library the ability to wave its magical copyright wand and make certain DRM cracks legal for three years at a time.
This time, the Library went (comparatively) nuts, allowing widespread bypassing of the CSS encryption on DVDs, declaring iPhone jailbreaking to be "fair use," and letting consumers crack their legally purchased e-books in order to have them read aloud by computers."\
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars
"Every three years, the Library of Congress has the thankless task of listening to people complain about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA forbade most attempts to bypass the digital locks on things like DVDs, music, and computer software, but it also gave the Library the ability to wave its magical copyright wand and make certain DRM cracks legal for three years at a time.
This time, the Library went (comparatively) nuts, allowing widespread bypassing of the CSS encryption on DVDs, declaring iPhone jailbreaking to be "fair use," and letting consumers crack their legally purchased e-books in order to have them read aloud by computers."\
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars
iPhone 'Jailbreaking' Legal Under New Government Rules; Huffington Post, 7/26/10
Joelle Tessler, Huffington Post; iPhone 'Jailbreaking' Legal Under New Government Rules:
"Owners of the iPhone will be able to legally unlock their devices so they can run software applications that haven't been approved by Apple Inc., according to new government rules announced Monday.
The decision to allow the practice commonly known as "jailbreaking" is one of a handful of new exemptions from a 1998 federal law that prohibits people from bypassing technical measures that companies put on their products to prevent unauthorized use of copyright-protected material. The Library of Congress, which oversees the Copyright Office, reviews and authorizes exemptions every three years to ensure that the law does not prevent certain non-infringing uses of copyright-protected works.
For iPhone jailbreakers, the new rules effectively legitimize a practice that has been operating in a legal gray area by exempting it from liability. Apple claims that jailbreaking is an unauthorized modification of its software.
Mario Ciabarra, founder of Rock Your Phone, which calls itself an "independent iPhone application store," said the rules mark the first step toward opening the iPhone app market to competition and removing the "handcuffs" that Apple imposes on developers that want to reach users of the wildly popular device.
Unless users unlock their handsets, they can only download apps from Apple's iTunes store. Software developers must get such apps pre-approved by Apple, which sometimes demands changes or rejects programs for what developers say are vague reasons.
Ciabarra noted that Google Inc. has taken a different approach with its Android operating system, which is emerging as the biggest competitor to the iPhone. Google allows users of Android phones to download applications from outside the Android Market.
Although Apple has never prosecuted anyone for jailbreaking, it does use software upgrades to disable jailbroken phones, and the new government rules won't put a stop to that. That means owners of such phones might not be able to take advantage of software improvements, and they still run the risk of voiding their warranty.
Apple spokesman Natalie Kerris said Monday that the company is concerned about jailbreaking because the practice can make an iPhone unstable and unreliable.
"Apple's goal has always been to ensure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone, and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience," she said.
In addition to jailbreaking, other exemptions announced Monday would:
_ allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.
_ allow people to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws.
_ allow college professors, film students, documentary filmmakers and producers of noncommercial videos to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism or commentary.
_ allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced.
_ allow blind people to break locks on electronic books so that they can use them with read-aloud software and similar aides.
Although the jailbreaking exemption is new, all the others are similar to the last set of exemptions, which were announced in November 2006. The new rules take effect Tuesday and are expected to last a few years.
The exceptions are a big victory for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which had urged the Library of Congress to legalize several of them, including the two regarding cell phones.
Jennifer Stisa Granick, EFF's civil liberties director, said the rules are based on an important principle: Consumers should be allowed to use and modify the devices that they purchase the way they want. "If you bought it, you own it," she said."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/iphone-jailbreaking-legal_n_659272.html
"Owners of the iPhone will be able to legally unlock their devices so they can run software applications that haven't been approved by Apple Inc., according to new government rules announced Monday.
The decision to allow the practice commonly known as "jailbreaking" is one of a handful of new exemptions from a 1998 federal law that prohibits people from bypassing technical measures that companies put on their products to prevent unauthorized use of copyright-protected material. The Library of Congress, which oversees the Copyright Office, reviews and authorizes exemptions every three years to ensure that the law does not prevent certain non-infringing uses of copyright-protected works.
For iPhone jailbreakers, the new rules effectively legitimize a practice that has been operating in a legal gray area by exempting it from liability. Apple claims that jailbreaking is an unauthorized modification of its software.
Mario Ciabarra, founder of Rock Your Phone, which calls itself an "independent iPhone application store," said the rules mark the first step toward opening the iPhone app market to competition and removing the "handcuffs" that Apple imposes on developers that want to reach users of the wildly popular device.
Unless users unlock their handsets, they can only download apps from Apple's iTunes store. Software developers must get such apps pre-approved by Apple, which sometimes demands changes or rejects programs for what developers say are vague reasons.
Ciabarra noted that Google Inc. has taken a different approach with its Android operating system, which is emerging as the biggest competitor to the iPhone. Google allows users of Android phones to download applications from outside the Android Market.
Although Apple has never prosecuted anyone for jailbreaking, it does use software upgrades to disable jailbroken phones, and the new government rules won't put a stop to that. That means owners of such phones might not be able to take advantage of software improvements, and they still run the risk of voiding their warranty.
Apple spokesman Natalie Kerris said Monday that the company is concerned about jailbreaking because the practice can make an iPhone unstable and unreliable.
"Apple's goal has always been to ensure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone, and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience," she said.
In addition to jailbreaking, other exemptions announced Monday would:
_ allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.
_ allow people to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws.
_ allow college professors, film students, documentary filmmakers and producers of noncommercial videos to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism or commentary.
_ allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced.
_ allow blind people to break locks on electronic books so that they can use them with read-aloud software and similar aides.
Although the jailbreaking exemption is new, all the others are similar to the last set of exemptions, which were announced in November 2006. The new rules take effect Tuesday and are expected to last a few years.
The exceptions are a big victory for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which had urged the Library of Congress to legalize several of them, including the two regarding cell phones.
Jennifer Stisa Granick, EFF's civil liberties director, said the rules are based on an important principle: Consumers should be allowed to use and modify the devices that they purchase the way they want. "If you bought it, you own it," she said."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/iphone-jailbreaking-legal_n_659272.html
Surprising New DMCA Exceptions: Jailbreaking Smartphones, Noncommercial Videos Somewhat Allowed; TechDirt.com, 7/26/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Surprising New DMCA Exceptions: Jailbreaking Smartphones, Noncommercial Videos Somewhat Allowed:
"Well here's a surprise. The US Copyright Office finally used its obligated DMCA exemption rulemaking process to support exemptions that protect consumers. As you may recall, every few years the US Copyright Office is obligated, by law, to listen to requests for specific classes of work that should be exempted from the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause and then recommend that the Library of Congress adopt certain exemptions (if it so chooses). Usually the exemptions are extremely limited and do little to protect consumers. In fact, in the past, the EFF has argued it wasn't even worth requesting exemptions for consumer issues, saying the process was "simply too broken." This year, however, they did participate, and actually got some things through."...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100726/09564610361.shtml
"Well here's a surprise. The US Copyright Office finally used its obligated DMCA exemption rulemaking process to support exemptions that protect consumers. As you may recall, every few years the US Copyright Office is obligated, by law, to listen to requests for specific classes of work that should be exempted from the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause and then recommend that the Library of Congress adopt certain exemptions (if it so chooses). Usually the exemptions are extremely limited and do little to protect consumers. In fact, in the past, the EFF has argued it wasn't even worth requesting exemptions for consumer issues, saying the process was "simply too broken." This year, however, they did participate, and actually got some things through."...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100726/09564610361.shtml
Online Course Construction Gets a 'Do-It-Yourself' Web Site; Chronicle of Higher Education, 7/23/10
Sophia Li, Chronicle of Higher Education; Online Course Construction Gets a 'Do-It-Yourself' Web Site:
"A new player entered the field of open online education last week: Nixty, a Web site that allows any user to take and create courses for free.
The new learning platform started up with over 200 course offerings culled from open-source content already available online, such as courses from the Khan Academy and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare Project. Nixty's users have begun developing about 120 new courses since its launch, said Glen Moriarty, the company's chief executive.
Nixty comes with all the trappings of most course-management systems: a grade book, testing, discussion boards. Mr. Moriarty used to head and is still in the leadership team at Scholar360, which develops course-management software. But right now, Nixty is meant to help make educational content free, open, and easy to access.
Other sites exist that put together the open-source educational materials available, said David Wiley, an associate professor of instructional psychology and technology at Brigham Young University. (Mr. Wiley, who founded Utah's Open High School, has been a guest blogger on Wired Campus.) Nixty is unique, though, in also offering ways for students and instructors to connect with one another, he said.
Students can ask other users questions, and instructors can collaborate to improve their teaching materials, Mr. Moriarty said.
But Nixty's current features are only the beginning of what its creators have planned, according to Mr. Moriarty.
In the next month, the five-person team behind Nixty plans to roll out a payment system for courses, Mr. Moriarty said. Instructors will be able to charge students who want to enroll in their courses, but Nixty will charge instructors $4.99 a month for three such courses and a commission of 20 percent of the money instructors take in.
Mr. Moriarty hopes to establish partnerships with several online institutions, including Excelsior College and Western Governors University, and he thinks Nixty will be a way for institutions to offer continuing-education courses online, he said. He also envisions Nixty helping students to earn course credit through the College-Level Examination Program.
So far, public activity on the site is minimal. According to Mr. Moriarty, none of the 120-odd courses users are developing on Nixty have gone public yet. In Nixty's nascent stages, it's hard to say if it will live up to its founders' dreams—but that's not to say their hopes aren't lofty.
"Google is the default search engine," Mr. Moriarty said. "We want Nixty to be the default educational engine.""
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Online-Course-Construction/25732/
"A new player entered the field of open online education last week: Nixty, a Web site that allows any user to take and create courses for free.
The new learning platform started up with over 200 course offerings culled from open-source content already available online, such as courses from the Khan Academy and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare Project. Nixty's users have begun developing about 120 new courses since its launch, said Glen Moriarty, the company's chief executive.
Nixty comes with all the trappings of most course-management systems: a grade book, testing, discussion boards. Mr. Moriarty used to head and is still in the leadership team at Scholar360, which develops course-management software. But right now, Nixty is meant to help make educational content free, open, and easy to access.
Other sites exist that put together the open-source educational materials available, said David Wiley, an associate professor of instructional psychology and technology at Brigham Young University. (Mr. Wiley, who founded Utah's Open High School, has been a guest blogger on Wired Campus.) Nixty is unique, though, in also offering ways for students and instructors to connect with one another, he said.
Students can ask other users questions, and instructors can collaborate to improve their teaching materials, Mr. Moriarty said.
But Nixty's current features are only the beginning of what its creators have planned, according to Mr. Moriarty.
In the next month, the five-person team behind Nixty plans to roll out a payment system for courses, Mr. Moriarty said. Instructors will be able to charge students who want to enroll in their courses, but Nixty will charge instructors $4.99 a month for three such courses and a commission of 20 percent of the money instructors take in.
Mr. Moriarty hopes to establish partnerships with several online institutions, including Excelsior College and Western Governors University, and he thinks Nixty will be a way for institutions to offer continuing-education courses online, he said. He also envisions Nixty helping students to earn course credit through the College-Level Examination Program.
So far, public activity on the site is minimal. According to Mr. Moriarty, none of the 120-odd courses users are developing on Nixty have gone public yet. In Nixty's nascent stages, it's hard to say if it will live up to its founders' dreams—but that's not to say their hopes aren't lofty.
"Google is the default search engine," Mr. Moriarty said. "We want Nixty to be the default educational engine.""
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Online-Course-Construction/25732/
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Wylie's Amazon deal brings the end of the publishing world nigh; (London) Guardian, 7/23/10
Richard Lea, (London) Guardian; Wylie's Amazon deal brings the end of the publishing world nigh: News that power-broking agent Andrew Wylie has bypassed conventional publishers to sell his clients' ebooks direct to Amazon has created panic. Is it curtains for conventional publishing?:
"Publishers came face to face with their own vision of apocalypse yesterday, as Andrew Wylie announced that he and his authors would be cutting publishing houses out of the future and teaming up with Amazon to sell their own electronic editions.
Grinning down from the saddle beside him in the first wave of horsemen is a fearsome collection of riders, including Philip Roth, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis and John Updike. "As the market for ebooks grows, it will be important for readers to have access in ebook format to the best contemporary literature the world has to offer," the agent popularly known as "the Jackal" said, cackling diabolically (I imagine). "This publishing programme is designed to address that need, and to help ebook readers build a digital library of classic contemporary literature."
Odyssey Editions may be launching with just 20 titles, but publishers are hitting back as if their eternal souls depended on it, and you can see why. Slice off the biggest names, the most valuable backlist items from any publisher's list and the business model is up in flames.
This may be nothing but an Armageddon-style negotiating ploy, as Wylie delivers on a warning he gave publishers late last year when Random House claimed existing contracts already gave them control over authors' electronic rights. But if Wylie and his lawyers can make this a success – and you only need to glance at his client list to imagine how – then others are sure to follow. Random House, which publishes Roth, Rushdie and Amis in the UK, has written to Amazon already "disputing their rights to legally sell these titles". It declared Wylie a "direct competitor" and ruled out "entering into any new English-language business agreements with the Wylie Agency until this situation is resolved".
It's the latest battle in a multi-dimensional war over the future of literature as authors, agents and publishers face a horde of technology companies, retailers and libraries, not to mention the pirates, with constantly shifting alliances. As electronic reading devices – the Kindles, the Readers, the iPads, your phone – finally begin to take off, all the old certainties are in flux. Do authors need publishers to take on the might of the retailers, or are publishers part of the problem? Should writers keep their copyrights safely under lock and key, or will that rob them of the chance to take wing?
Once upon a time publishers were the only ones who could find authors, edit manuscripts, print books and distribute them, but new technology from desktop computers to the internet has thrown the doors wide open. As marketing departments have gained the ascendancy over editorial, agents have moved centre stage, filtering submissions and polishing manuscripts. With the messy business of ink and trees and Transit vans receding, Wylie's latest move is simply the logical next step. None of this will worry those publishers who have made a business out of finding the voices others haven't spotted, but in the week when Amazon claimed that ebook sales passed those of hardbacks the questions are unavoidable: who needs big publishers? Are the interests of writers and readers best served by big publishers, or the Jackal?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/jul/23/authors-amazon-deal-publishing
"Publishers came face to face with their own vision of apocalypse yesterday, as Andrew Wylie announced that he and his authors would be cutting publishing houses out of the future and teaming up with Amazon to sell their own electronic editions.
Grinning down from the saddle beside him in the first wave of horsemen is a fearsome collection of riders, including Philip Roth, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis and John Updike. "As the market for ebooks grows, it will be important for readers to have access in ebook format to the best contemporary literature the world has to offer," the agent popularly known as "the Jackal" said, cackling diabolically (I imagine). "This publishing programme is designed to address that need, and to help ebook readers build a digital library of classic contemporary literature."
Odyssey Editions may be launching with just 20 titles, but publishers are hitting back as if their eternal souls depended on it, and you can see why. Slice off the biggest names, the most valuable backlist items from any publisher's list and the business model is up in flames.
This may be nothing but an Armageddon-style negotiating ploy, as Wylie delivers on a warning he gave publishers late last year when Random House claimed existing contracts already gave them control over authors' electronic rights. But if Wylie and his lawyers can make this a success – and you only need to glance at his client list to imagine how – then others are sure to follow. Random House, which publishes Roth, Rushdie and Amis in the UK, has written to Amazon already "disputing their rights to legally sell these titles". It declared Wylie a "direct competitor" and ruled out "entering into any new English-language business agreements with the Wylie Agency until this situation is resolved".
It's the latest battle in a multi-dimensional war over the future of literature as authors, agents and publishers face a horde of technology companies, retailers and libraries, not to mention the pirates, with constantly shifting alliances. As electronic reading devices – the Kindles, the Readers, the iPads, your phone – finally begin to take off, all the old certainties are in flux. Do authors need publishers to take on the might of the retailers, or are publishers part of the problem? Should writers keep their copyrights safely under lock and key, or will that rob them of the chance to take wing?
Once upon a time publishers were the only ones who could find authors, edit manuscripts, print books and distribute them, but new technology from desktop computers to the internet has thrown the doors wide open. As marketing departments have gained the ascendancy over editorial, agents have moved centre stage, filtering submissions and polishing manuscripts. With the messy business of ink and trees and Transit vans receding, Wylie's latest move is simply the logical next step. None of this will worry those publishers who have made a business out of finding the voices others haven't spotted, but in the week when Amazon claimed that ebook sales passed those of hardbacks the questions are unavoidable: who needs big publishers? Are the interests of writers and readers best served by big publishers, or the Jackal?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/jul/23/authors-amazon-deal-publishing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)