If you constrain the discussion very very explicitly to *exactly* what the Guild has explicitly and officially said *and not said*, then yes, you can argue that the Guild's position *on Kindle* has nothing specifically and explicitly to do with copyright.
But the larger discussion is absolutely tied up with copyright, and it doesn't make sense to have the discussion without taking copyright into account. It would be insulting to the management of the Writer's Guild to imply that they're not thinking about copyright and fair use. If they're not, they should get fired or run out of office for incompetence. So I assume that's not what you're doing. On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:47 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > > Because they at no time say that the Kindle reading is anything other > than an anauthorized audio copy, i.e. a matter of rights licensing. > > -- eric scoles ([email protected]) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
