jim said:
Seems to me that a human-generated HTML *is* a non-trivial derivative work since the choice of HTML coding *is* a human artistic effort chosen to make the software run well on one or more ebook readers and/or HTML browsers, and as such *is* creative derivative work worthy of copyright. IE I am arguing that writing HTML is writing "software" and is not just "printer's art."
it might seem that way to you... but precedent sides against you. legally, a ruling has been issued; markup is sweat, not authorship... as for d.r.m., amazon lets publishers decide on that matter for themselves. but isn't that point moot if the e-books are constantly freely available from p.g.? i understand the importance of fighting the symbolic battle, but there's no use in wasting ammunition senselessly, is there? -bowerbird