ps - apologies for some apparent incoherence in my previous post #2459 just now. I should learn not to edit after the posting. I usually get into a contest with the 15 minute timer, and lose.
My second paragraph should have read:
"If pressed to the wall, I'd have to say that while I can't outwardly condone ripping off materials from anyone, sometimes the net effect of reposting is less extreme (indeed many publications fully expect it to be done to them) in practice than many make it out to be. While it's still "wrong," there are even some positive effects which frequently fall to the 'owner,' at times.
"Especially where the rightful owner fully expects it to be ripped off, and tacitly agrees to same through ignoring the many casual infractions which take place each day. Or, where the sheer number of infractions makes it impossible to continue any expectation of being able to enforce against them, as it now seems to be nearly, if not in actuality, the case on the Internet at this time."
=====
Publishers who wish to have their copyright terms recognized and respected to the letter of the law will always make a point of making such desires explicitly clear to their readers in bold print. Sometimes contractually, where big stakes are involved.
Others, albeit scant few in comparison, depend on common sense and a sense of community among their readers. The latter methods don't always, but very often do, on average, prevail. There are some interesting dynamics at play here, to say the very least. FWIW.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
