Nope. I was just pointing out that an uthor may benefit from the system. This analysis was devoid of critical legal analysis, it was simply a look at how an author could benefit.
> Why is that?
>
> Are you just speculating, or do you know that Amazon
> does not have a license
> to do what it is doing?
>
One of the articles previously posted indicated that Amazon was not worried about obtaining licenses.
> Before Amazon can make the full text searchable, it
> must have the full text,
> which probably means scanning and OCR'ing and
> editing printed books -- in
> other words, making a reproduction the Copyright Act
> says that Amazon doesn't have
> a right to make (without a license, or fair use or
> something else to save
> it).
>
The article indicated that Amazon had done just that. I wasn't questioning their legal analysis, I was looking at the business analysis. If an author complains the author's works will likely be taken out of the database, this is Amazon, not Microsoft after all.
I was simply positing that this could hurt the author more than help the author, so this decision may be more than just a copyright decision.
It doesn't matter if they have the "right" to do it if the authors (and publishers?) decide that they like it. A happy plaintiff doesn't sue.
keith
> - Charles
>
> tilyou1[_at_]aol.com
> Charles B. K.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT