NOR did anyone pay attention to the part where I asked why?
Why is everyone so upset about this? If it is NOT that they are making money
off of your work (which people have insisted it is not), than what is it?
I really want to know. I wrote my FAQ so that people would have
information. I post it in several groups so that people who have a need
for the information can find it. My ONLY concern for redistribution is if
someone is either a) making gobs of money from it (in which case I'd like
a share; I'd really enjoy being _able_ to make money from my writing)
or b) claiming it for their own, neither of which I would accept. ASIDE
from these exceptions, I don't care WHO passes it along to an interested party.
Would any of you get upset if someone took your FAQ and posted it to a
newsgroup you don't post it to? How about if they put it on a mailing
list? Made it available via ftp? Put on a Web site?
Can our resident copyright expert tell me this: if I were to take, say,
the copyright FAQ and put it on my Web site (thus publishing it somewhere
else), would I be considered guilty of copyright violation?
What Walnut Creek is doing is, IMO, no different than what the people who
maintain the FAQ archives do -- they are putting all of our FAQs in one
place, so that people will have them readily available.
As far as ethics go:
Someone made this comparison: if Walnut Creek had taken Omni articles and
prepared them to be put them on a CD, and then published in a trade journal
that they had done this and if the authors didn't want their work
republished they should contact them and give them a negative, it would
be the same principle.
I see several inherent differences. Firstly, AFAIK, no one wrote their
FAQ for pay or is getting paid for its distribution. People who
contribute to FAQs seem to be doing so out of a genuine interest in
gathering and summarizing the information on a topic. The whole purpose
of writing and maintaining a FAQ seems to be wildly different from the
purpose of writing, an essay or story for publication.
Our mythical Omni CD would represent lost income for authors who are
publishing their stories for the sake of that income. The republished
FAQs represent redistributed and more widely disseminated information
that is being posted for the sake of information.
Secondly, the objection seems to be for some people based on 'not
everyone reads this list'...
While I find that a legitmate objection in that Walnut Creek should know
that and therefore should make an effort to place their notice where
every FAQ maintainer has a good chance of seeing it, I also have to say
that there are two reasons why I think that this is still more reasonable
than people are willing to admit. Firstly, because they did ask that the
message be passed on to everyone people on this list knew would have an
interest in it (leaving, granted, up to us work that they probably should
be doing), and secondly because its reasonable to assume that a FAQ
maintainer would be reading this list. In fact, I'm not sure why one
WOULDN'T.
Of course, I'm certain that most of the people on this list will continue
to disagree with me, but frankly, I think people are making a huge fuss
over something that really is, IMO, no more than a slightly rude approach
to this whole subject.
I would like to say that if there are FAQ maintainers who are seriously
considering bringing suit against Walnut Creek (really! isn't that a
bit much?) that not only do I not wish to be a part of it, but I
personally find the idea at best an extreme overreaction and I might go
so far as to consider it despicable.
Tina, FAQ maintainer for alt.support.dissociation
Who is not going to discuss this issue further.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved