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