I personally have two related gripes here:
>Many members of the faq-maintainers list are extremely disturbed by this
>announcement. While we recognize that CD-ROM publication is a valuable
>adjunct to network distribution, we consider Walnut Creek's action to be
>unethical, illegal under the Berne Convention, and prejudicial to our
>future rights in a way we cannot and will not ignore.
You need a better definition of "we" here. Since you're collecting Email
address of supporters, perhaps something akin to "we the undersigned."
That way, Walnut Creek has a specific list of those who wish to be
represented in this letter. Those of us on this list who do NOT wish to be
part of this list would be excluded by omission.
>And control is the key issue here. We do not propose to hold up Walnut
>Creek for royalties; we recognize that the economics of the situation
>would make that unreasonable. Walnut Creek's offer of a free CD-ROM to
>every author who requests one would be fitting compensation, if compensation
>were our sticking-point. It is not.
I'm very glad to see this in here. I doubt it could prove to be a
stumbling block for any possible legal action, but it shows you're seeing
all sides of the issue (or at least more than just "my way").
>This note is a formal assertion of our rights at law. While a substantial
>minority of us are angry enough to sue over the present situation, the list
>as a whole hopes that negotiation will allow a repair of our relations with
>Walnut Creek, and that we can work together in a way that will set precedents
>beneficial to all parties.
Check with someone more skilled in legal action, but I'm not sure if saying
"This note is a formal assertion of our rights at law" would actually make
it so. I suggest, too, modifying the second sentence to read "While a
substantial minority of us are angry enough to CONSIDER A LAWSUIT over the
present situation, MANY OTHERS ON THE FAQ-MAINTANERS MAILING LIST hope that
negotiation..." (The all-caps verbage shows the changes.) This performs
two functions:
1. it avoids any sort of legal threat, which could be used against the
signers of the letter should a lawsuit occur (it could even be used to
start a countersuit);
2. it once again keeps you for speaking for every recipient of mail from
this list.
When you collect "signatures" for the letter, you probably will want to get
full names, and perhaps even addresses (again someone can correct me on
this one). It's your call whether or not to release the addresses in the
letter or keep them for yourself & agree to serve as a point of contact.
As I've implied before, I will not sign my name to this letter; I don't
feel the situation warrants it, although I won't stand in your way, either.
Joe
--
========================================================================
Joe Sewell * What's the point in being * Internet: jsewell@iu.net
* grown up if you can't act * CIS: 74136,360
Is reality merely* childish? * AOL: JoeS10
virtual fantasy? * - The Doctor * Fidonet: 1:374/328.7
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved