Thanks, this whole thing was starting to get completely
ridiculous. I've even been wondering if we should start keeping
the archives private, or remove them from the website altogether.
I know that would be drastic but people submitting posts to MOQ.org
MUST have their rights protected.
The trouble is we have so many people of different backgrounds
together on this site. I tend to assume that it's all university
graduates here, and everyone understands about citing references
and intellectual property etc. But it turns out Dan is completely
lost when it comes to such things. In his own words he's uneducated.
Of course it's great that Dan is trying to do something like this.
But he's like a doctor operating without a license -- he means well,
but he's just ending up hurting people.
I think I'll put a more strongly worded warning about copyright
on the website. Hopefully that will discourage further abuses.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of elephant
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 7:07 PM
> To: moq
> Subject: MD Authors Rights
> Dan, Diana, Oldtimers, Newtimers,
> What I want to say is short simple and just sweet enough to be digested.
> Authors have rights. Morally, legally. Editors have obligations, and the
> first of these is to seek and obtain proper permissions from authors, both
> on the project in general and on the specific result. That remains true
> whether the resultant publication is electronic or paper, held in a few
> private collections and distributed by hand, or stratospheric in the
> bestseller lists and piled up in the windows of Barnes and Noble.
> But let us put the morality and the laws of our various lands to one side
> for a moment, and look at this purely from the point of view of Quality,
> without raising the popular question of how morality as so and so
> understands it relates to Quality as such and such perceives it.
> How high quality is it to produce a public representation of moq.org, the
> main upshot of which is anger and discord? Not very.
> Now, a little while ago, and without familiarity with Dan's project, I
> posted a little post about producing a book from moq.discuss along the lines
> of 'wouldn't it be great if..... ?'. In that same post or in the next I
> then said that the toughest job would be editing the posts to everyone's
> satisfaction - and that this would be a job to tax any editor, the biggest
> part of which job would be diplomacy and tact.
> Well now, how tactful and diplomatic is it to have reached a position where
> an editor has first of all gone ahead with the project without seeking
> appropriate permissions, and secondly asserts his intention to continue in
> the face of explicit opposition from contributors? Not very.
> Such a situation exceeds Pirsig's concerns about Robert Redford's Movie
> project by a country mile.
> I suggest that in the light of this it would be tactful and diplomatic for
> Dan to either:
> (1) Remove Diana's name and work (and such other contribitors and
> contributions for which he has not obtained publishing permissions) from
> Lila's Child werever posted and without delay.
> (2) Remove Lila's Child from his website.
> Dan, if you want LC to be a private accomplishment shown only to a few
> friends, that's fine. In that case I should do (2) and pronto.
> If one wants to speak of the Law, than I myself have to be careful not, for
> instance, to publish on my website material for which I have conceeded
> copyright elsewhere: not without permission that is. And all the papers
> which I have submitted for publication elsewhere - these too I have to hold
> fire on. This is only common-sense.
> When I think of the trouble I went to to be sure that I had permission to
> post even my own Masters thesis on the Web (in case the univerity had some
> prior right of intellectual property or objection in principle, as is often
> the case (and was for years preceeding my thesis)), the current situation
> seems to me to result from an unfortunate lack of proper care and attention.
> We might need a book of the moq.org . But there is a right way and a wrong
> way to go about this.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:17 BST