I was re-reading this article from the Bookseller about the debate in New York on the subject of territoriality. It is a fairly obstruse argument and ultimately revolves around whether or not it is a good idea to have both American and British editions of the same book available for sale in a particular market. I attended most of the debate (I stomped out at one point when one of the speakers had become plain offensive) and what surprised me was the heatedness of the language. Phrases such as 'atavistic protectionisn', 'last gasp tactics' and 'imaginary empire called the Commonwealth' were a bit over the top.

The issue seems pretty simple to me. If authors and agents wish to have separate US and British editions of their book (as opposed to a single global publisher) that is their choice. If having both editions available in a country increases sales (which I don't believe) then both editions should be available in all countries and British and American publishers should open their home markets to allow any editions from overseas to enter and compete. I cannot quite see American publishers being happy about this. Nor would I be. I think that exclusivity is good for authors and retailers and the health of th eindustry. In which case American and British publishers should do everything in their power to protect territorial exclusivity, including granting exclusive EU rights to British publishers, rather than the very dangerous open-market Europe of the past.

Or am I being simplistic?

The wedding in Vienna was sensational, ending up with a wonderful party at the Schönbrunn Palace below. Old Europe certainly knew how to build palaces and knows how to celebrate weddings. I cannot, however, resist recording that the groom's mobile rang just as the bride was making her wedding vows. What a moment.