On 25 Jan 2003 at 9:01, Erik Reuter wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 01:48:52PM -0000, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > "Lomborg's response was to publish the text of the Scientific > > American article on his own website and to intersperse it with a > > detailed response to every point raised by his critics. Scientific > > American then threatened to sue Lomborg over copyright." > > > > I think that says it all really. > > > > It is NOT acceptable to post an entire article on a website, no > > matter WHO does it if you don't have the appropriate permissions. > > Period. > > Of course it is acceptable in this case. Lomborg was replying in a > reasonable way to an article extremely critical about HIS book. If > Scientific American's publishers had any scientific ethics at all, > they wouldn't object to someone responding in a detailed manner to an > article they published. It all comes down to what they consider most > important: open discussion of important scientific topics, championing > their beliefs at all costs, or maximizing their profit. Clearly, they > don't consider the first important. Sad.
Legally, it's unnaceptable. In some ways, especially in a case like this. Give a detailed rebuttal, yes, but don't reprint the entire article! You can respond without printing their entire article. If they don't protect their copyright, they lose it. if you don't like it, take it up with your legislators. I CERTAINLY don't like the way that aspect of copyright law works, but that IS THE LAW at present. They're a business. Unless they protect their copyrights they won't HAVE any profit. It's black and white from where I'm standing. Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
