179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
EggyToast
To:
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:29:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
Msg-Id:
<3036.128.220.50.51.1047500989.squirrel@www.eggtastic.com>
In-Reply-To:
<3E6F966F.4050107@eds.org>
Mbox:
idm.0303.gz
quoted 6 lines Besides, copyrights aren't meant for distribution issues as much as>>Besides, copyrights aren't meant for distribution issues as much as >>they are for plagarism issues. >> > i dont agree, they were very much put in place to prevent one > publishing house from putting out another companies material without > paying them.
A few of the journals I put online have discussed this recently, and it's basically true. American publishing houses were publishing works of british authors (that were published originally by british publishing houses). They were not paying for the works; they were simply running off copies and selling them with no change to indicate that they were "unauthorized" or that the author wasn't getting anything from their sale. There are memoirs of some of the better-known british authors complaining about american publishers, but complained that there was "little they could do without copyright laws in america." Ironically, America now has some of the most stringent copyright laws, and has pushed for the most recent expansions of copyright law. How the tables have turned, eh? :) There are no laws against plagiarism, per se. The laws of copyright include plagiarism only because of the reproduction of other people's work. -- eggytoast.com - eggtastic.com ------ catchy signature coming soon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org