Let me explain why I am upset. I too feel that I want information on my
FAQ's subject to be distributed as widely as possible. I have come to
the conclusion that Walnut Creek's actions are, ironically, interfering
with that goal.
First, let me say that I write the rec.nude Site Report FAQs. This
contains a list of nude or clothing-optional beaches and resorts. I
believe in the principles of nudism, and I would like the word to be
spread as widely as possible. While most of you might think this is a
pretty strange topic, my situation is probably no different than for most
of you. The writer of a FAQ on, say, surfing or sailing wants everyone
to know how great surfing or sailing is, and the writer of a FAQ on brand
X computers wants everyone to know how great brand X computers are.
Now, there are a bunch of people out there who write lists similar to
mine. Some are not for profit, some are for profit. Just to give you
an idea, book titles include
World Guide to Nude Beaches and Recreation
INF World Handbook
North American Guide to Nude Recreation
Hot Springs and Hot Pools of the Southwest
California Nude Beaches
and many others. Now maybe some of you collect information on such
strange topics (stranger than nudism?) that you are the only collectors
of your kind of information in the world, but I doubt that is true for
most of us.
Now, why do I put a copyright notice on my FAQs? Mostly because I want
the authors of these other guides to think twice before just using the
information in my guide. I want them to ask me for permission to use
what I have collected. I want to be able to say, "Sure, you can use
my information as long as I can use yours." I might even approach them
and ask the same thing. In the end, their guides become better, AND my
guides become better. More good information gets distributed to more
people. Nudism is well served.
Now, along comes Walnut Creek. First of all, their techniques bother
me. They made no attempt to contact FAQ writers for their first CD, and
they have made only a feeble effort this time. Their offer of a free CD
is totally without value to me -- I can get more up-to-date information
off of the Internet, so what do I need with their snapshot of what was
on the Internet some time ago (minus those FAQs that were removed by
request)? The big problem with Walnut Creek, though, is the precedent
they set. If I let them steal my FAQ, what happens if one of the other
authors of a nudist guide wants to do the same? I lose my leverage to
get them to give me their data in exchange for my own. I *need* for
them to ask me permission, or I can't act for information in exchange.
I can't let Walnut Creek get away with not asking for permission.
By asking Walnut Creek to remove my FAQ, I will get to a few fewer people.
Out of all of the buyers of the CDROM, though, how many are going to even
notice that my FAQ is there? How many will care? My FAQ is so lost in a
ton of other FAQs, that I don't see this as a major loss of readership.
This isn't like someone forwarding my FAQ to a newsgroup, bulletin board,
or mailing list which is sufficiently related (say, travel) that it is
likely to reach people who care.
The loss of shared information with others who collect information similar
to mine, on the other hand, could prove to be quite significant. You all
need to ask yourselves whether you might also be losing more by appearing
on this CDROM than you are gaining.
Richard M. Mathews Freedom for Lithuania
richard@West.Sun.COM Laisve!
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved