Neither one applies. The policy is simply practical: Dale doesn't want trouble, is all. That, not the question of ethics, has been the basis of his appeal, as I read it, and I don't see anything wrong with it. He has enough to do and concern himself with already without fielding inquiries from authors. Simple as that.

_________________
"Time is the wisest counselor of all." - Pericles

"I remain not entirely convinced of it." - Nano

Nope, not what he says.

'In any case, I do believe that an author ought to retain some control over where her copyrighted material appears. I do think there is a potential of wronging an author by reproducing a work, especially an entire work, without her permission.

I didn't mean to imply (which I certainly did) that I'm worried about the legal aspects. I've lost no sleep about it whatever. But, if I write an article, and enter into an arrangement to have it published somewhere, I do think I would feel wronged by someone reproducing it elsewhere without my consent. I don't think I'd get my knickers in too much of a twist over it, but I do think there's a principle involved. Granted, if I spit in any direction, I'm likely to hit a more important principle, but there is one here, I think.'

Fair enough, and I would expect Dale to weigh in on the discussion. Still, this from the original post:



Sounds altogether practical to me however one slices and dices the ethics of it.

_________________
"Time is the wisest counselor of all." - Pericles

"I remain not entirely convinced of it." - Nano

Nano, please let me suggest you reread the thread.

Dale's legal 'impression of risk' was abandoned in his post I quoted above,
' I didn't mean to imply that I'm worried about the legal aspects,'
largely as a consequence of Caj's post (Caj has a doctorate
from Princeton in communications and explains cogently why there is
no legal risk).

As to the two incidents, Dale writes later:

'One of the two incidents I've had I'd rather not discuss on the board. It ended up perfectly well, but there are some people involved I don't want to call out publicly. Also, in fairness, it really doesn't apply that well.

The other incident was from a few years ago when I re-published, in much of the same way that jim has, an article from the Irish Times about Paddy Moloney playing the whistle at 9/11 Ground Zero. I admired the piece, and I think I put it in its entirety, with full credit to the author and the Irish Times, in the newsletter. (Which, of course, is archived on the web.) At some point, thru the miracle of Google, I heard from the author who billed me. I responded promptly and courteously and she withdrew with equal courtesy but reminded me that it would have been no problem at all had I requested permission, which I hadn't done.'

In short, in all the years of chiffandfipple there has been one
relevant incident of an author complaining about her work being
published, it happened a few years ago,
and it concerned something that Dale published in
the Newsletter, nothing about the message board.
So the argument that the policy is needed to spare Dale
the nuisance of corresponding with disgruntled authors
about our message-board posts is very weak.

Dale started to justify the policy apparently by
adverting to a legal worry. This was effectively
answered by Caj. Dale then shifted (you will find the whole post if
you reread) to the ethical concern we've been discussing.
This has been his real concern all along.

Yes, I see now that practical issues are iffy. Carry on.

_________________
"Time is the wisest counselor of all." - Pericles

"I remain not entirely convinced of it." - Nano

Thank you. You are a prince among moderatorers.

I won't quarrel. But I'll just point out that Dale's concern in formulating a posting policy is legal - an never mind how intense his concern is. That does not preclude Dale from being curious about and interested in the moral or ethical aspects. A discussion of the fat content of fois gras does not mean that one is blind to the geese's cruel fate (and vice versa).

_________________
/Bloomfield

Thank you Bloomfield for presenting us another view on Dale's position.
I trust Dale is persuaded by it.

_________________
qui jure suo utitur neminem laedit

Are you talking about royalties and the work of public (civil) servants? How is this relevant to the issue at hand?

_________________
qui jure suo utitur neminem laedit

Yikes. I was just thinking maybe we shouldn't oughta re-print an entire copyrighted work here without permission. That's what I was thinking.

Stand by. I'm working on a theological argument.

If you are thinking about re-printing information from a copyrighted source, you should stop and ask yourself "WWJR -- What Would Jesus Reprint?"

_________________
Crazy for the blue white and red
Crazy for the blue white and red
And yellow fringe
Crazy for the blue white red and yellow

It isn't. You mentioned international concerns of copyrights, an it reminded me of these two things. I thought that this thread had left Dale's policy and had gone to copyright in general. Sorry if it was OT.

_________________
"Be not deceived by the sweet words of proverbial philosophy. Sugar of lead is a poison."

You are the ultimate interpreter of what you meant.
If this is what it all comes down to, it seems an insufficient
ground for the prohibition.

That might help.