Re: EDM Article MEW

On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 14:30:30 -0400, Brian Fairey <bfairey@...>
wrote:

>Here we go again? well sue me.
>Brian.

>Mike Chaney wrote:
>
>> Brian Fairey wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Brian Fairey <bfairey@...>
>> >
>> > Ian, the lesson to be learnt from this is that if you want something ask "HERE". I can scan you the article and email it to you
>> > if you want, you only have to ask.
>> > Brian. Ont,Can
>> >
>>
>> That would constitute breach of copyright.
>>
>> Mike

Yes, it would TECHNICALLY constitute such a breach, but given the
circumstances with the actual publisher unable to recover the entire
issue, I hardly think they're likely to complain or want to, when some
one individual privately steps in to help out someone bereft of a copy,
especially where no commercial or for-profit motive obtains. They'd
moreNlikely be thankful for the private exchange of article copies
taking heat off them for screwing up so badly. You'd be absolutely
AMAZED at the huge likelyhood that even asking for formal permission to
POST a scan of such an article, would result in not only ready
permission, but literal AWE in the minds of the publishers, who would be
overjoyed that someone would even BOTHER to ask them! On our group,
we've had several occasions where we wanted to post previously published
articles, and WITHOUT exception, when we asked for such permission to
post/upload the article to a PUBLIC site, we were give immediate
permission, AND profuse thanks for asking first. And this was for
requesting permission to reproduce an article copy in PUBLIC.

I'm from a centuries old publishing house (we now reproduce archival
quality recasts of classical works from the 17th, 18th, & 19th century),
and whilst publishers STAUNCHLY defend their copyrights, they're not
likely to consider private forwardings of a lost copy to a friend, with
quite the majesterial pomposity of your single line "that would
constitute breach of copyright". If you WANT a now internationally
agreed upon canon of intellectual property to be RESPECTED by the
public, you wanna stay away from prissy finger-pointing like this, that
would attempt to criminalize on the same level, such "professional" or
"for research/investigation purposes" copying of articles, with someone
cloning a copy of a valuable restoration work that could impact the
restoring company enormously in financial terms, or in the case of a
magazine, supplying for profit, reprints of entire ISSUES. A single
ARTICLE copy, from an entire ISSUE on the verge of being lost by the
publisher themselves, please let's keep things in perspective, shall we?

Remember that the international copyright laws ALLOW for reproduction of
magazine articles in sizeable quotations for the purpose of review and
comment. There is a tacit acknowledgement therein, that the copyright
laws are NOT aimed at those who are trying to discuss, share, and
advance the art, but IS aimed at those who seek to profiteer from the
republication of works in their entirety, or to circumvent the
subscription charges of the magazine publisher. The latter cases are
CLEARLY not the situation in this example before us.

Just me dos centavos, amigos. Strange as it seems, copyright laws when
sanely applied are one of the last bastions of rationality in law left
remaining in the US legal system. Let's not stretch it so paper thin
that the elasticity is all taken out, OK?

Gar