> I will volunteer my time to draft the non-legalese parts of the letter. I
> hope the attorney who posted on the Berne Convention and copyright law will
> contribute the legalese.
I have to decline, for at least four reasons.
First, "contributing the legalese" would actually amount to legal
representation. I would have to jump though multiple hoops to make sure
that there were no conflicts of interest between all persons represented,
and every attorney at my firm. While we have procedures set up to
identify such conflicts, it's really a bit more than I'm interested in
doing.
Second, doing this work, even if there are no conflicts, could set me up
for conflicts in matters that might arise in the future. My firm may
have to turn down work as a result of this representation.
Third, doing this work would be subject to the same standards of any
legal work -- I would be on the hook for malpractice if I did anything
less. This is a _lot_ more time than I'm willing to put into this.
Fourth, since I am affiliated with the firm, it is the firm, and not I,
who would make the decision as to whether I should take this on. We do a
great deal of pro bono (i.e., unpaid charity) work, but it's doubtful
that I could convince TPTB at my firm that this particular cause is worth
the risks presented above. Our typical pro bono work is more along the
lines of aiding underprivileged persons who are being stonewalled by
insurance companies, or being evicted from their homes due to a scam
artist who fraudulently refinanced it out from under them. (Think of
that next time you hear the slams against lawyers.)
On this particular issue, I don't think we're going to convince one
another about the rightfulness or lack thereof of asserting one's
rights. Clearly many FAQ maintainers have no problem with their FAQs
being copied. However, that fact does not mean that someone who does
have a problem with having his or her FAQ copied is wrong. It is going
to be up to each to decide.
Rhys commented, for example, that his only interest was in distributing
information to society, and the unspoken assumption was that widespread
distribution of his FAQ does that. Others, however, have other
interests: the desire to keep control to be able to maintain accuracy,
pride of authorship, the possibility of publishing with a competitor,
etc. Or they may have the same interest in distributing information, but
feel that, due to the changeable nature of their FAQ's contents, the best
course of action is to avoid fixing a snapshot of their work in as
immutable a form as a CD-ROM. It's fine that Rhys has made his
assessment of what his interests are, and an assessment of what course of
action is most likely to achieve that interest. However, it's clearly
erroneous to assume that everyone has only those interests, or that they
have come to the same conclusion about the best means of achieving it.
Rhys's assumption that only he knows the way of supplying information and
implying that only lawyers would wish to impede information is not well
thought out, as is shown by the number of non-lawyers on this list who
have expressed similar concerns. And, of course, they are no more
accurate than a generalization that, for example, university employees
think his way because they are not equipped to deal with the real world.
-- Terry Carroll | Attorney at law | Santa Clara, CA | Quayle/Bono in '96. carrollt@netcom.com |
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved