----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [Listref] Environment
> 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. Its not black and white. From the copyright law we have: Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. While point 3 tends to work against Lomborg, the other three points tend to work for him. If I were his lawyer, I'd argue the ability to give a detailed response to the charge that he has attacked science itself is a very strong argument. That clearly addresses 1 and 2. The purpose and character of the use is defense against serious public charges. The nature of the copyrighted work is an attack on his own work. The effect of the use on the potential market is next to zero, the magazine was already off the shelves. If SI agreed that any author who's work was subject to a negative review has the right to quote the review in a rebottle, then they have not severely limited their copyright. At the very least, it is a possible interpretation of fair use. Further, this interpretation is so narrow and specific, the chance of losing the copyright over it is extremely small. The bottom line is they didn't follow through with their threat. The cofounder of Greenpeace still has it on his website, and he has written them practically daring them to sue months ago. I'm guessing, from what he writes on his website, he is no longer part of Greenpeace because he has some of the same difficulties with them that you do. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
