Patrick --
Besides displaying an utter lack of appreciation for what constitutes libel (I refer to your postings to me on another forum), you continue to advertise the fact that you have an utter ignorance of what constitutes copyright infringement.
Roy's e-mail service is in no way different from Bob Bishop's Fax-Alert service (except, of course, in terms of the quality of material). We've been summarizing Mr Bishop's Fax-Alert and newsletter for many years; other news services constantly publish the gist of stories found in leading news organizations. I've referred to the New York Times' Pentagon Papers series as an example of when newspapers summarize their competitors' work.
Just because Roy Carson says you can't take one word out of his e-mail dispatches does not mean he has this right. Does he have a patent on each individual word in his stories? Of course not. While we may not reproduce all or large sections of his material, he cannot prevent someone from saying: "This is what Roy Carson reported."
If we are wrong in this, I'm sure Mr Carson would have followed through with his threat of legal action. But, like Crystallex's libel suit against Manuel Asensio, it appears to be all bluster and no delivery.
The bottom line is, Mr Carson does not want to defend his body of work, and you happen to agree. So what?
Pat, like Mr Carson, you have displayed that you possess only a dim understanding of journalism, but this fact does not appear to prevent you from offering your uninformed postings on the rules of the industry.
Taking advice from you on journalistic affairs is like taking Roy Carson's advice on the Las Cristinas court case -- or taking Frank Lostrocca seriously when he says KRY is a $50 to $60 stock (okay, that was some time ago).
Jerry Collins
CSW |
