[Web4lib] Wikipedia vs Britannica

[James Jacobs]

*sigh* Looks like it has devolved. There is clearly disagreement on what 
constitutes fair use. I am not a lawyer, but I've not seen any cases of 
publishers suing listservs for copyright infringement. My intent was to 
help those who could not access the article (see Even Flood's post) and 
was clearly, IMHO, within my fair use rights.

Let's get back to the wikipedia discussion shall we? There's no need to 
scrub the archive of this one article. The fair use/listserv debate would 
make a fertile panel discussion at a future conference or on liblicense 
(http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/index.shtml). I'd certainly be 
willing to sit on that one ;-)

Regards,

James Jacobs

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Drew, Bill wrote:

> Being for open sharing of information does not mean opposition to
> copyright.  Just because you disagree just not necessarily mean it is
> right and prudent to support posting of an entire article here.  Such
> posting is clearly not fair use.
>
> Wilfred (Bill) Drew
> E-mail: mailto:drewwe at morrisville.edu
> AOL Instant Messenger:BillDrew4
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
>> [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Chuck0
>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:22 PM
>> To: Patricia F Anderson
>> Cc: James Jacobs; Web4lib at webjunction.org
>> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Wikipedia vs Britannica
>>
>> Patricia F Anderson wrote:
>>> Not just bad form, but illegal, especially for a list that
>> is archived
>>> publicly online. Is there a way to edit the archives so that Nature
>>> doesn't get annoyed with us? -- Patricia
>>
>> There are some of us who disagree. Information wants to be free and
>> sharing articles on an email discussion list certainly falls
>> within even
>> the most conservative interpretation of fair use. We
>> librarians ought to
>> be a bit more vocal about supporting the open sharing of
>> information and
>> be opposed to closed and proprietary systems.
>