Re: Comment please? (summary)

Subject: Re: Comment please? (summary)
From: Stan Brown <stbrown -at- NACS -dot- NET>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 18:24:48 -0500

Thanks, techwrlers, for responding to my "Comments please?" (For those
who missed it, I asked whether I was right to be annoyed that someone
had forwarded my comments about a book to the book's publisher without
first asking my permission.)

The person who forwarded my material without permission has apologized
in email, and I have accepted the apology.

Since I didn't say "I'll post a summary", I don't feel I should say
who responded <grin>, but I'm sending a copy of this note to all of
them. The results, by the way, were that eight persons said I was
right to be miffed; one said no, I should take it as flattery; and one
wasn't sure. Of the eight, three used much stronger words than
"miffed". All cited reasons of ethics and courtesy; some in addition
pointed out the law.

Several persons were unsure about the legal status of posted material.
I myself am not a lawyer, but the _Chicago Manual of Style_ makes the
law pretty clear: when you write something, it belongs to you and
can't be republished or copied without your permission. There are
specific exceptions, such as a "work made for hire", which don't apply
to Internet postings. I presume that the _CMS_ folks researched this
area pretty thoroughly: my two-sentence summary is drawn from chapter
4 of the 13th edition.

Regards,
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems Cleveland, Ohio USA +1 216 371-0043
email: stbrown -at- nacs -dot- net Web: http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown


Previous by Author: Comment please?
Next by Author: Good Usenet/Web article on copyrights
Previous by Thread: Re. Simple (simplified) English?
Next by Thread: Job Descriptions


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads