>could you elaborate breifly on what "fair use" might be? Fair use as it relates to the internet is a contested and murky area at the moment. You can't just take rules that apply to the classroom or in providing materials to another individual, such as the immediacy rule, and assume the same goes when you are broadcasting to a list and also when the list is archived. Publishers are making strong statements these days against these practices and are likely to take action. What anyone does depends on that person's comfort level. Part of the problem with fair use and a list is that a subscriber's comfort level may be different than the listowner who may be the focal point of a publisher's cease letter or of a lawsuit. This said, I certainly do doubt that the NYT or WSJ is losing any sales because of any article posted to this list or any other list. But in a lot of ways that's beside the point in terms of what could get the list into trouble and how members of the list should conduct themselves. I think a fair guideline would be not sending whole articles to the list. Rather, pertinent parts can be quoted within a message discussing the issues. Many news articles are written in a very repetitive style in any case, so an excerpt may be sufficient. As someone who is a publisher and is on this list, perhaps Doug Henwood would like to discuss his perspectives. I notice he doesn't just put the LBO or his books on the list and distribute them for free. There may be some level at which he is happy to let people distribute parts electronically. What is that level and why? Ellen Dannin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
