> True, though I don't have to agree to a license agreement to purchase
> and read a book. I was thinking in this context the license agreement
> which specifically forbids reverse-engineering would give you more
> options than strictly dealing with copyright law. But IANAL.
Careful what you [don't] wish for... The NYT ran an article that makes me wonder how long before our books are shrink-licensed too (the link is as follows, but has been archived and you have to shell out $3 to read it now):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70915FA3A5F0C718DDDAE0894DC404482
Here's a quote:
'Used books are to consumer books as Napster was to the music industry,' [Lorraine Shanley, a principal at Market Partners International, a publishing consultant] said. 'The question becomes, 'How does the book industry address its used-book problem?' There aren't any easy answers, especially as no one is breaking any laws here.'
The idea was that used books were taking too big of a chunk out of new book sales (I imagine a number of you caught wind of that one). That's right, book companies are [imo, etc] upset that they're competing with themselves by overpublishing from the start.
Anyhow, so the publishing consultant is implying that she'd prefer people *were* breaking laws by selling used books? (In my opinion, even in the context of the whole article, she sure enough was implying that.) Great stuff, this licensing is.
Ruffin Bailey
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Java-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/java-dev/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
