Both posts are by Andrew Albanese.
The first post is about the publishers' response to Audible's filing last week. In the earlier filing Audible's lawyers contended publishers gave away "their right to sue for copyright infringement" when they contracted with Audible. The publishers' lawyers responded in their filing that the defense "makes no sense" as the licensing contract doesn't give away the publishers' copyright, so Audible is guilty of copyright infringement if they publish speech to text of the publishers' audio books. Panzer already told you about Audible's filing.
 |
| Reading is reading. Listening is listening. |
The second post is about the hearing Judge Valerie Caproni's questions for Audible's lawyers about their Fair Use defense. The judge was asking about an explanation about the reading experience of Captions. The judge did not issue an injunction yet, but did say the court case could be scheduled before the end of the year.
Panzer says, "It looks like this is one of those court cases that just keeps going on and on and on."
Note: Each of today's posts is medium length. Bring a cup of tea and two muffins for each post in today's reading selection. If you plan to follow the links in the posts, bring an extra gallon of tea and two dozen muffins.
To read the post about the publishers' response, tootle over to Publishers' response to Captions defense
To read the post about the judge's questions, tootle over to Captions hearing judge
To read Panzer's earlier post, tootle over to Audible filings
No comments:
Post a Comment