Hi -- 
When you are back on the web, do a google search on your name, you could be
very nastily surprized. 
Several authors I know have been, of late.  There are some *nasty*
offenders out there. Free information usually still means that you have to
ask permission of the author, even if the author doesn't want $$; unless
the author specifically says othewise,an

The argument has been labeled "freedom of information",
"electronic rights" and
"protecting the public domaine". What it appears to be is a grab
for film and
TV and prints rights by coprorate media types wanting to put all sorts of
things n the web, or use them for advertising purposes without paying
royalities to -- say -- Humphry Bogart or Joseph Campbell's estate.  The
AOL/Time Warner suit that has been in the media is *exactly* about this issue.
So, ask yourself, who actually gets the $$ that the webmasters charge for
downloading "Casablanca" ?? Or, for the use of
"Imagine" to sell cars -- is it
the Lennon estate?  OK -- these guys are rich .. and, I say, so f------- what?
They sold their work, work hard and were well paid, it seems to me that people
should reqpest the wishes of artists regarding their work, even those whao are
dead.  respecting living ones should be that much easier a concept to
comprehend.  I get paid for teaching, and I should get paid for my copyrighted
work.  Lezlie
>Hmm.  Now, if a person puts something on the Web and doesn't care whether 
>we copy it or not, then that information is "free."  But if
someone takes 
>the exact wording from a work that the author has copyrighted, then the 
>situation isn't covered by fair use after a couple of hundred words, and 
>it's plagiarism.
>
> >National Public Radio discussing this issue and its ramifications
>
>Maybe the NPR website . . . no, I just can't go surfing right now.  But it 
>does sound as if we should be "up" on this issue.  I can see
where certain 
>corporations would like to be able to take OUR stuff free, but then if WE 
>copied something they'd posted (even if it were stolen), Katy bar the 
>door--we'd be sued.  They're probably trying to figure out how to phrase 
>things to protect big business and the sleazy cabal that is trying to erase 
>freedom of speech these days, but *not* protect the individual and his or 
>her intellectual property from *them*.
>
>*sigh*
>
>To bring this even further on topic:  I've read on another list that 
>Harlequin/Silhouette is no longer bothering to apply for copyrights on 
>authors' books, and so the authors are going out and paying the $30 or so 
>fee themselves.  While this seems fine on the surface, I can't believe that 
>H/S is struggling financially to the extent that they'd need to skip that 
>part, so I have to wonder if there's some ulterior motive.  Those books hit 
>the shelves one month and are returned as pulp if unsold the next month (or 
>go to some liquidator--they don't stay in print, normally, not the ones 
>coming out as part of a category line such as Desire or Blaze), so it 
>wouldn't seem that H/S is all that concerned after that month is 
>past.  *But* it does seem they'd want to keep the work from being taken 
>later by some other company . . . without any penalty.  If the author 
>doesn't know how to do it or doesn't do it, what does that do?  Does it 
>mean that the author is the stuck-ee all by himself or herself, should the 
>book be copied later?  Authors could file suit and show the published book 
>as proof that the work is theirs, but would that mean they'd win?  (Most of 
>these books are so bad that I can't imagine why they'd be plagiarized, but 
>I suppose the same market that consumes them might want more and more.  De 
>gustibus, and all that.)  Authors also usually sign contracts in which the 
>rights revert to them in a few years, three to five most of the time, and 
>so they might want to re-sell the work later, possibly to an audiobook or 
>e-book house.  So what happens if there's no copyright in the author's 
>name? I'd think most authors should pay the fee and be sure.  (*And* most 
>of us should keep track of what's happening with the issue of copyright!)
>- - -
>The only thing that flies faster than an F-16 is your guardian angel
>- - - -
>Nine out of ten doctors recommend reading my books.  The tenth is a quack.
>Shalanna Collins  
http://home.attbi.com/~shalanna/>
>_Dulcinea: or Wizardry A-Flute_  (e-mail me 4 excerpt)  ISBN 0-7388-5388-7
>New!  I'm trying out a blog/jrnl
http://www.livejournal.com/users/shalanna/>
>

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha