It doesn't matter whether dotcoms are coming up or going down, but the question of who owns the rights to reproduce articles in the new electronic media has plunged authors and 'publishers' into a bitter battle in recent months. It is pitting authors against publishers and causing the industry to rewrite contracts for authors. When an author signs a contract, he gives the publishing rights to the publisher in return for a stipulated royalty against the sales of the book. These rights include, inter alia, the right to print, market and sell the book within a certain defined territory; to give reprint rights to other publishers in different parts of the world; to offer translation rights in different languages at home and abroad; to offer serialization rights to newspapers and magazines; to offer film, television and dramatic rights. By and large, authors who have published earlier and know the tricks of the trade or have negotiated the contract through their literary agents do not surrender all of these rights. For instance, they could offer marketing rights only for certain parts of the world. They could also reserve translation, serialization and visual media rights and offer these bit by bit to other publishers in different parts of the world. Dotcoms have added another dimension to the market. The heart of the matter now is whether authors should get a share of the proceeds if their work is reproduced on CD-ROMs, databases, online services or any other electronic media outlet. This is the crux of the fight now on between publishers and their authors. Publishers have come out with contracts so that, in most cases, they can retain full electronic publishing rights. Some even contain a clause granting themselves the right to include material without compensation to the author in any type of media and technology 'whether now known or hereafter developed.' The right, these contracts stipulate, is accorded to publishers 'in perpetuity throughout the universe.' Multimedia lawyers have advised publishers not to count on traditional contracts to protect their rights in electronic publishing. They have been told 'to ensure that they obtain broad enough rights in new material...to exploit it in the new media.' Hence the new contracts. Right now, no one is certain about how much money is involved. But the battle is about the possibility that in future, significant amounts of money may be at stake. Two questions arise. First, what should the author do? Second, is the situation too far-fetched for India? The answer to the second question is no because any serious book on any subject will be published today only if there is some export potential. The domestic market isn't sufficient to make it a viable business proposition. A globalized market means that the Indian publisher will have to fall in line with global market terms. It could also mean that internet publishing rights are available for negotiation. As far as authors are concerned, a lot depends on the kind of clout they have. If it is Salman Rushdie, or V.S. Naipaul or some other big name, they could call the shots and get what they want. But the second string will simply have to give what publishers want. The big question then is: will authors stand to gain to find their work on the world wide web? In financial terms, they may not, because any one can download without paying a fee; but in terms of exposure it would be a boon. And that could lead to spin-offs in many different ways.