Head of S.F.'s Library Resigns Under Pressure (fwd) - -Reply

[KAREN SCHNEIDER]

This is the naive "information wants to be free" concept,
promulgated when the cost of Internet services was largely
hidden by the silent flow of money among government and
academic institutions.  

I've been using the Internet for six years, as well--make that
seven years, if you count my .mil email address--and in the early
days people were more respectful of other people's wishes.  If
SFGate doesn't want its resources to be forwarded from its site,
that is its choice as a provider.  It made its policy clear with the
copyright statement on its pages, which, btw, is not a requirement
(copyright is inherent; you don't need to include the notice). 
Note also that SFGate makes its money from their paper and the
website is an added service available to the world.  All they ask is
that you respect and protect their authorship to the extent of not
forwarding the information without prior permission.

Let me share a little something I learned in  my 8th grade
social-studies class.  The patrons in every library I've worked
have always paid royalties.  We call them "taxes."  We use the
revenue from  taxes to purchases resources, including books,
database licenses, CD-ROMs, computers to access fee-based as
well as publicly-funded resources,  and librarians.  In turn, the
producers of these resources are paid, and they pay the authors
and programmers. It's a reasonably fair system, and at any rate, is
typical of our economy.  Sometimes folks share stuff for free;
that's their right.  Sometimes they charge for it, or restrict it in
some way; that's their right, too.  I understand that in the same way
I understand why I have to pay for my groceries before I leave
the supermarket.  

To furthermore exhume the stereotypical "shushing" of librarians
and apply it to this situation is as ridiculous as saying this is a
netiquette issue.  The reason you see so many copyright notices
on the 'net is precisely because of the folks who have
demonstrated flagrant disregard for others while wrapping
themselves in the flag of intellectual freedom.  Perhaps *you*
feel pure, brave and noble when you are ripping someone off, 
but if I had such tendencies I would be a little sotto voce myself.

Karen G. Schneider/schneider.karen at epamail.epa.gov
Contractor, GCI/Director, US EPA Region 2 Library
http://www.epa.gov/Region2/library/
Opinions mine alone

>>> CMUNSON <CMUNSON at aaas.org> 01/23/97 03:59pm >>>
     And what are we attempting to prove here? A person sends
the text of a 
     news story that may be of interest to the folks on this list. Then
we 
     get in response some scolding based on some notion of
netiquette that 
     some of us disagree with. While there are some librarians that
support 
     the concept of ownership of information, there are some of us
who have 
     serious objections to that view. I've been using the Internet for

     around 6 years and I find the excessive privitization of
information 
     to be highly disturbing. I'm find it sadly distressing to read 
     messages from librarians that amount to "shhhhh. Don't share
that 
     information."
     
     Maybe we should make patrons in libraries pay royalties to
publishers 
     each time they read something.
     
     These opinions are mine and not my employer's.
     
     Chuck Munson
     Wash, DC


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Head of S.F.'s Library Resigns Under Pressure
(fwd) -Rep
Author:  o-tech at o-tech.com at Internet
Date:    1/23/97 5:11 AM


Karen makes a compelling point about forwarding news.  See 
http://www.benedict.com/enewsfax.htm#enews
for verification.
     
Eva Holtsmark
     
KAREN SCHNEIDER wrote:
> 
> fyi, folks, before this message gets forwarded all over planet
> earth... while I'm not sorry to see Dowlin go, forwarding entire 
> articles from SFGate is not allowed.  I checked, by the way,
> before making that comment; they wrote back and said, "You
> cannot copy or otherwise incorporate one of our stories without
> permission. "  That's pretty clear.  I wouldn't bring this up on the

> list (I addressed it in private with forwarder 1 and forwarder 2)
> but I have now seen a web4lib post crawl to Autocat, and who
> knows where it will go next.  If it has permissions, they should
be 
> so stated.  We're librarians, y'know?