Posted by JohnS on July 22, 2001, at 17:39:28
In reply to On PB it is a rare event » Justice, posted by Shar on July 22, 2001, at 10:13:07
> You are talking about a rare event that occurs on PB.
It is a rare event, yes. It occurs on PB, yes. It is rare in the genre of medical discussion boards, because most board operators do not allow it, they say so in their FAQ, and they delete offending posts when they occur. It occurs on PB because a person who apparently operates this board without benefit of legal counsel allows it to occur.
> there will always be people who do not follow fair use guidelines
Then let's encourage the web-master here to delete their unfair postings?
> you seem to want to make dire predictions for what will happen to the internet based on 20-something articles improperly posted on PB in the past 2 years
> Why talk in hypothetical terms if you are talking about the impact of something done from PB. PB is right here; we don't need to go to cyber-space (although it is more impressive that way).
You seem to agree, then, that they were improperly posted. The substance of my concern is not to advance a dire prediction. My concern is that authors’ works are improperly and illegally posted here. The “dire prediction” you mention is a rhetorical and logical device often used in ethical debates that asks “what if everybody did this.” And PB is in “cyberspace”. My post explained that mirroring a bootleg copy of an article here allows readers to bypass the sites of on-line publications that invested resources to research and publish the article.
> It is disappointing not to have the number of articles properly posted (constituting fair use) out of the millions of PB posts.
We are talking about a hundred thousand PB posts, not millions. The number on PB is around 70,000, there are under 2000 on PBA, and under 8,000 on PSB. About .03 percent of all PB postings seem to be illegally posted copyrighted articles. If you would like to supply the number of posts that fairly reference published articles, I agree, it would be helpful in demonstrating the majority opinion about how to fairly reference the published work of others. If, hypothetically, 5 percent of PB posts (5,000) were posts that refer to other articles, then of those posts, about .6 percent of those would be unfair and the rest fair. This seems a small enough trend to nip in the bud. Ignoring the trend might encourage an increase of the ratio.
But if just one accusatory, un-supportive or sarcastic post is “uncivil” and warrants a managerial intervention, why are a couple dozen illegally posted copyrighted articles allowed to remain with no comment from the management?
> We do not know the negative impact on the authors whose works were improperly posted, and also do not know how these authors may have benefited from having their articles read via PB.
Perhaps an expert could better answer, but not knowing the impact of an action is not a reason to continue the action. Is that the standard you use in selecting medications? If Newsweek, or your local University newspaper thought a little-known writer could benefit from re-publication, they would still not have the right to copy the writer’s work without permission. That is what copyright means – the right to control the copying of one’s work.> But the growing awareness of the guidelines that result via the debates should assuage--not heighten--your expressed fears.
Let’s call them concerns, not fears. But yes, the purpose of fostering discussion is to expand recognition of the concern.
> In many, the story is about the author and article, not the article itself
That is because successful publishers know the fair way to tell their readers about the works of another author or researcher. These publications don’t simply steal an author’s work, instead they write a fair news report that expounds on the work and sometimes offers contextual information as well.
> All had proper reference back to the original author.
That is, in part, because I found these articles by searching PB for the names of publications. Such a method would not find any that might have been posted without reference to the source.
> vast majority of articles come from "public" sources designed to "spread the word" about the topic
Most, if not all, were from privately owned commercial sources designed to make a profit for their owners by spreading news of interest to their readers. If their readers can get the same news elsewhere, that interferes with the profitability of the venture.
> there were 11 posters who posted these articles.
And now 12, counting the SciAm article. The number is growing. How many “uncivil” posters are allowed before intervention is warranted?
> Life Needed - Inquire Within
This an ad hominem argument; it is a personal attack. An on-topic reply, on the other hand, could help to advance the discussion.
> This posting did not damage the copyright (make it less valuable)
There was a recent case where one corporate attorney was successfully sued for retaining just one copy each of several articles from scientific journals. The standard courts use, and that most educational institutions use, is the one that asks “what if everyone did this.” If everyone posts copyrighted articles on Internet bulletin boards, it would damage the interests of publishers, hence even one posting sets an unfair precedent.
poster:JohnS
thread:1598
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1633.html