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