This makes sense. Is it sufficient to disallow this in the terms for
distribution?
>Similarly, most FAQ maintainers get upset when someone reposts an old
>version of a FAQ, especially if the original posting date isn't
>included. It disseminates outdated information, it clutters up the
>newsgroups, and it might lead to the author being flamed for
>broadcasting incorrect info that he/she has already taken the time to
>correct in the official version of the FAQ.
This makes sense too. I don't yet know if this is what Shappe was
concerned about.
>I have on my bookshelf quite a few books that are collections
>of short stories by diverse authors. One or two of them contain
>stories that were originally published in not-for-profit press.
>By Tim's argument, the publishers of those collections should not have
>to pay royalties to the authors of those stories, since they are not
>being 'harmed' by the inclusion of their works.
The analogy is not valid. In the scenario in question, the author of
the FAQ has decided not to make any profits from it, so in the analogy
the authors of the stories would refuse royalties, I suppose. The
analogy also confuses a legal issue with a motivational issue; I'm
asking a question about the author's motivations, not about the law.
>Money aside, there's a basic principle that the author of a work, like
>the parent of a child, retains control over what is done with it.
I agree, except in the US at least parents don't have total control
over their children. But that's not important. Again, I'm asking
questions about the motivations of the author, not the law.
>I
>helped (in a small way) to write the soc.culture.jewish FAQ. I would
>complain strenuously if large chunks of it were to be included in a
>book of anti-Semitic literature. That's simply not what it was written
>for.
This is the issue of redistributing fragments of the FAQ again, which
is legitimate, and perhaps avoidable if the right strings are attached
to republishing, if such agreements are enforceable in practice. Are
they less enforceable than a simple prohibition to republish?
Tim
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved