Probably. I suppose if they have a problem with it they can revoke my subscription. Since I am not subscribed to salon.com under my name or e-mail address (or any of my aol addresses), I suppose I have very little to be concerned about. I have already explained why i don't feel this is a big deal.From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:14:06 +0100> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2002 14:50 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: Copyrights, etc. (Was: RE: NASA) > >In point of fact, my decision to subscribe to Salon Premium was, in > >fact, due to the quality of articles I saw from the Premium section. > > In other words, the very occasional posting of articles is actually a > form of free advertising for the publisher in question! I think that when confronted with this "occasional posting", a publisher will think "copyright violation", and not "free advertising".
No, you are working from an inaccurate assumption, i.e. that if a published article has been reposted that the author of said published article will not be paid for it. This is not the way things work in the world of publishing.But hey, we can put this to the test. Some of David Brin's more recent essays and articles are not available at Brin-L.com because he asked me to not post them there, as he intends to sell them to magazines first. You can post one of those articles on the WWW and then see what happens...
When a magazine (for instance) publishes an article by a staff writer, that writer is paid a previously agreed-upon salary, or in some cases an hourly wage. If a magazine publishes a freelance writer's article, then the magazine has already paid for the article once they purchased the rights to it. Average price for an article varies, but it usually a by-the-word or spec fee agreed upon before the writer submits it in it's entirety. The published writer has therefore been paid for his work, which then belongs to the magazine.
By posting an article that Dr. Brin has *not* been paid for by a magazine, you are stealing from him. The article is his until he chooses to sell it to a publisher.
Once you repost Dr. Brin's work from a magazine, you are not stealing from him -- he no longer owns the republishing rights, you are stealing from the magazine. In fact, if he now wants to republish his own article, he usually will have to add a disclaimer to the effect of 'Reprinted with permission of Good Housekeeping Magazine" or some such.
This is a standard procedure in publishing. There are exceptions and they usually center around a magazine's desire to publish pre-published materials, in which case they will usually have to publish the same kind of disclaimer themselves.
Jon
GSV Get it?
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
