Chris writes: > O.K., William, then it's not all about money. > > But what's the harm in someone else "cashing in on my work and > plagiarizing it." ? Isn't the circulation of good ideas more important than > anybody's reputation? > As I recall, one of Williams aims -- posted earlier -- was to prevent people from altering an alleged quote by him, or putting it out of context. That could almost amount to the opposite of plagiarizing -- and be a worse transgression. > > (and once again, Cheerskep, in our new internet world, the cost of > publication and distribution is ZERO -- a major change since the days of > Queen > Anne) > > Ah, Chris, your flow of uninformed remarks is boundless and speedy, because ignorance is a frictionless universe. To say posting a 500-page novel on the internet is "publication and distribution" is to show you have no idea of what a publisher does.
> BTW -- I'm not for revoking copyright law -- but I am for considering its > negative as well as positive consequences. And when copyright law is > encouraging art museums to keep good reproductions of their collection off the > internet, that's a serious problem as far as I am concerned. > Then what you're really for is improving copyright law. And I'm with you on that. As a publisher I certainly saw awful, unjustifiable effects of certain copyright provisions. ************** You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get Oscars updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
