Oh give me a break. Look, my FAQ includes an explicit copyright at the
beginning and I'm not getting bent out of shape about it.
Let's address your points:
1. [the CDROM people] are violating copyright .... This behavior is
[illegal]
Well, its quite possible that they would have a leg to stand on in a
courtroom battle. I don't know about you, but my copyright specifically
allows distribution via electronic means; although I do prohibit the
collection of money for such distribution, they might be able to make the
case that they are only collecting 'fair distribution' costs, given how
inexpensive the CD is.
Most people on the 'net who use explicit copyrights use a variation of
the one I use, and most people who rely on implicit ones would probably
feel that that sufficiently covers their rights for their purposes.
Because this is the standard interpretation of the implicit copyright,
any FAQ that does not contain an explicit copyright worded so as to be
more restrictive would be very likely to be interpreted this way by a
court. I'll grant that I have only read a very tiny fraction of the FAQs
on Usenet, but I've seen very few explicit copyrights in them. Do yours?
I've been very wordy about this point, even though its the one that I
have the least contention with. It could easily be interpreted as
illegal to publish the FAQs in this manner. But, tell me, are you going
to sue the people who maintain the FAQ archives? How about someone who
prints out a copy of your FAQ and leaves a copy around for anyone to look
at? How far will you go in defending your copyright?
2. 'by including their FAQs without first explicitly requesting
permission'
But that's precisely what they've just done! They are making an
assumption that most people don't mind the inclusion of their FAQ on the
CD but expressly informing the maintainers of the FAQs of their intention
to publish and giving them the option of saying 'I don't want you making
money off my FAQ'. Given that this is (at least!) the second time that
they are publishing this CD, I think they probably have a fair amount of
evidence of the number of people who actually mind having had their FAQs
published.
3. 'This behavior is unethical...'
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. They are further disseminating
information that I for one began compiling so that more people would know
about it. They _are_ charging for this service, but they are also
shelling out money to do it. They aren't exploiting people and making a
huge profit from them, they are taking information that we who compile
FAQs WANT other people to read, and putting it in a format that more
people can read.
I just don't get what the problem is, here. You are perfectly free to
tell them not to include your FAQ(s) on their CD, but may I ask why you
bother to maintain these FAQs if you wish to limit who can read them and
how?
And what do you think they _should_ do? Pay each and every FAQ
maintainer? What do you think that would come out to be...maybe a penny
per CD sold per FAQ? No thanks, I've got a drawerful.
Tina
Maintainer of the alt.support.dissocation FAQ
Who will be very glad to see more people learn about dissociation,
thankyouvermuch.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved