My $.02 (OK, more like nickle) on the Broken Camshaft

[Kneale Brownson]

If Brendan were deriving revenue from his website (like a newspaper selling 
subscriptions and advertising), then I'd agree that his use of someone 
else's material would be inappropriate unless he's given permission and he 
provides attribution.  In your case, Jenny, you say he asked permission and 
you granted it.  WHERE's the beef?  Phil has a legitimate objection if 
Brendan failed to ask for or obtain permission.

The sorriest result of all this would be for Brendan to no longer provide 
the resource.   His goal seems to be to provide information reliably.  As I 
noted before,  websites come and go, making links sometimes unreliable.




At 09:52 AM 10/12/2001 -0500, Jenny Curtis wrote:

>Hi Qlist:
>
>Reading the recent discussion about Brendan's page I just have to
>throw in my opinion.  Brendan e-mailed me and asked if he could borrow
>my rust repair guide for his page.  He wanted to edit it to fit into
>the format of his page.  I agreed but not without a bit of bristling.
>I think that it was the whole idea that sat wrong with me of having my
>content entirely lifted off my page, even if I was given credit.  I
>realize that when you edit something to fit a certain format you might
>have to change things.  That's why it's editing.  But in many cases I
>think the author should have the final say, especially if it's
>something technical and changes to the text suddenly make the
>information wrong.  I edit technical writing as part of my job and I
>ALWAYS have the author look at the work after I edit the style to make
>sure I haven't changed the meaning of something.
>
>If some people had their content borrowed without their permission
>then that's a whole other story.  That's just out and out nasty.  I
>read a story about the Sunday Times in England that completely ripped
>off a web site that was about humorous incidents that happened between
>an English guy and his German girlfriend.  The Times changed the names
>but stole the content word for word.  Ironically, the original author
>was a freelance writer and he probably would have sold it to them for
>less than they had to pay out in legal fees and lawsuit damages.  Even
>more humiliating for the original author was having to defend himself
>to people who e-mailed him to say "you sad pathetic loser, you just
>ripped this off from the Sunday Times."  While I realize that this
>case is not as severe as the Sunday Times' plageurism combined with
>copyright infringement, taking something from someone's else web page
>without their permission, even if you credit them, is still copyright
>infringement.  The web is still the wild, wild west.  There is very
>little recourse for this kind of theft and my own site contains
>examples (Cary Grant stills from copyrighted movies, sounds from
>movies, etc.) that are copyright violations.  So far in five years no
>one has ever threatened me with a lawsuit if I don't remove them.  I
>figure it's all sort of harmless fan-based fair use that in the end
>probably makes far more revenue for the property holder than it does
>for me.
>
>As for whether or not Brendan's site is in the spirit of the web, I
>would have to say that it is not.  The original reason for inventing
>hypertext, etc. was for phycisists to share papers back and forth.
>The difference here was that they were papers that they submitted to
>an archive.  There is a vast difference between submitting your work
>and having it lifted without your permission.
>
>On the other hand, I think that the overall idea behind the site has
>merit.  Wouldn't it be great to find  BTDTs quickly and easily and be
>able to print them in a nice tidy format?.  If the site is merely a
>list of links then it becomes impossible to control the format and
>it's less useful.
>
>OK, I realize that it's more like a nickel, so I'll shut up now.
>
>Jenny Curtis
>4kCSQ: The Eurotrash Princess