> And if some republisher is printing
> it in a book or on a CD-rom and makes a few thousand dollars from
> swiping a few hundred FAQ's without permission, what are we "out?"
> Maybe ten dollars, tops.
> No, I don't "grant permission" to people asking to reprint our FAQ for
> profit because about half the material in it isn't mine, and
> technically, I can't release it or define the terms and conditions for
> reprinting it. But beyond that, it's more a matter of courtesy---if I
> started putting my imprimatur on having the material reprinted "for
> profit" the majority of the contributors would ask me to remove their
> material and quit contributing, and I'd be stuck having to conjure up
> 10,000 words in a hurry on topics I'm not particularly familiar with.
> This isn't a matter of "damages" or becoming a bunch of sue-happy
> Americans by seeking redress in some court of law the moment we don't
> like something; it's a simple case of common courtesy----how people get
> along with one another in a cooperative venture.
My major problem with this entire thing isn't that I'm `out' any money
whatsoever. It's that my work is being sold by someone too lazy to create
their own original stuff and they're pocketing the money. They're taking
everything we worked hard to create and contributing almost nothing and
when we should have the audacity to speak up they get offended.
I offer to you the reply I got from Frank Gadegast when I presumed to say
"NO" to his request to use my FAQ:
- - - - Begin inclusion - - - -
<standard Elm headers deleted>
<quote of my FAQ header and no reply deleted>
Hallo,
Surely I except this, that was the matter of the mailing.
You see, lots of other FAQ-maintainers WANT the stuff spread as far
as possible, and more than 150 maintainers already agreed to the
project. It's specially getting nice now, because you can jump
from one indexed word to the FAQ that is explaining it, so
its getting more like a dictionary about Internet and Culture
and Software in general.
I read your posting to the faq-maintainers mail-list and I just
don't see the pointing why you are "nailing" me down like that.
That project mightened be interesting for you, but can you
not think that it is for others ?
And for the money-thing: sure I get my work paid here, hours of
programming, research and online-cost. And when it goes in
investing thousends into pressing a CD-Rom I have to get my
money back, sorry. And I rather make money with something that
is interesting for everybody, than give uninteresting rubbish
to the world, like all these posting "MAKE MONEY FAST" appearing
everywhere ;o)
Furtherone, did you not know so far, that your FAQ is already
on at least 2 CD-Roms ? And they were not even asking you
before ....
<phade's sign-off and .signature deleted>
- - - - End inclusion - - - -
So.... All his work supposedly justifies that he's making money from our work,
and since someone else obviously has ripped off my FAQ before should make
me eager to have him do same? Those last two paragraphs are why I did not
answer his email. I don't trust myself...
Please, if you're on of those "150 maintainers already agreed" do come
forward and back up his claim. I find it hard to believe, judging from the
discussion here on the mailing list.
But my point to those of you who ask "why not" when the subject of FAQ
maintainers protecting their intellectual property rights is, would you
let someone use your tangible property for profit just because they wanted
to?
I have no wish to litigate, I'd rather just keep my FAQ out of outside
publications. But if I keep getting this "we should get paid for your
work" attitude, I'll round up others and see if we can make a dent in
this latest runaway MAKE_MONEY_FAST_WITHOUT_WORKING trend.
- Britt
--
"I was sleeping nicely, then someone shut the lid on my pillow...
That hurt." - SJK 12-12-94 0500
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved