Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

WOW! This relates to the Zapno threads



I compliment Dan et al. for standing firm. See below:



CORPORATE TRESPASSING

||| SIVA VAIDHYANATHA, CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION - Let's pretend
that a journal has just published your harshly negative review of a book

in your field. In this review, you quote short passages from the book,
confident that the long-accepted concept of "fair use" enables you to
make even unwelcome use of copyrighted material for purposes of
criticism. But a week or so after the electronic version of the review
appears on the publication's Web site, the editors inform you that it
violates the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and that they are
removing it. You are welcome to respond. You are free to argue that the
use of the copyrighted quotes falls under fair use. But the publication
is under no obligation to accept your defense. So you publish the review

on your own Web page. But you soon discover that all of the major Web
search engines have removed your site from their indexes. That couldn't
happen, you say? Welcome to the new millennium . . . Recent actions by
Congress and the federal courts -- and many more all-too-common acts of
cowardice by publishers, colleges, developers of search engines, and
other concerned parties -- have demonstrated that fair use, while not
quite dead, is dying. And everyone who reads, writes, sings, does
research, or teaches should be up in arms. The real question is why so
few people are complaining.

[much more and relating directly to Zapno.]

http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i47/47b00701.htm


courtesy of UNDERNEWS: http://www.prorev.com/indexa.htm

bc who thinks the article leads to a bc political statement, but won't
risk it.