E-books in court 

Appeals court rules against Random House in e-book dispute by Hellel italif

With electronic rights to countless books potentially at stake, a small e-publisher has won a second legal round against Random House Inc.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously upheld an earlier decision rejecting Random House's request for a preliminary injunction against RosettaBooks, which is selling e-versions of "Cat's Cradle" and seven other old Random House books.

"It is a good day for authors and for the development of electronic reading," Arthur Klebanoff, RosettaBooks' chief executive, said Monday.

Random House spokesman Stuart Applebaum said the ruling "was on procedural grounds, not on the ultimate legal merits of our arguments," and that the copyright infringement lawsuit would continue. [read more]

Author and publisher 

The "Standard" Book Contract: An Antitrust Lawsuit Waiting To Happen by Thomas Hauser

Publishing is a business. No one questions that reality. And whatever it might have been in the past, publishing is no longer the "gentlemanly" business it was once thought to be. Rather, it's about squeezing every last dollar out of every available source--and the most vulnerable source is the author.

Best-selling writers might be treated fairly by the media conglomerates that dominate publishing today, but the average author isn't. And no clearer proof exists than the "standard" book contract, routinely forced upon authors and their agents. Many of the clauses that have been imposed on authors throughout the industry bear no relationship to any economic reality other than the best interests of the publisher.

Yet these clauses flourish because virtually every major publisher insists on them--and the average author has no recourse. [read more]

More on Copyright Term Extension 

Extending Copyright Helps Corporations, Not Artists by Jonathan Tasini

Later this year, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether Congress violated the Constitution when it extended copyright protection four years ago. Individual creators will instinctively side with Congress, believing that control of copyrights should go on as long as possible. They are mistaken. Congress acted unconstitutionally and, by doing so, chose the economic interests of corporations over culture, knowledge and society.

In 1998, Congress extended the term of copyright from life plus 50 years for individual creators to life plus 70 years. In other words, my heirs can control any works I create and own for 70 years after my death. The law, known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, also added 20 more years of protection to "corporate" copyright.

The main plaintiff in the case, Eric Eldred, runs an Internet library that posts works in the public domain. He contends that Congress' extension violated the constitutional copyright principle embodied in Article I, Section 8, which reads, "The Congress shall have power to ... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."... [read more]