Im America, the "codification" of which Stevan speaks must
not be called a property right. It is an artificial
monopoly that may be granted (or for that matter, denied) by
Congress within very important parameters. The
"giveaway/nongiveaway" distinction serves a political
purpose, while it must b
This may be a poor deal, but we should not blame the author in
particular , as it is
apparently standard practice in some European countries--
they seem to have a more archaic procedure than in North America.
Fyttton, as you, Steven, and others have pointed out, much better ways
are available.
I
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Alan Story wrote:
> So the phrase " text authorship" is the solution, is it? And "authorship",
> unlike " property" is merely a neutral word with none of its own baggage?
>
> Too bad Michel Foucault is not a member of this list.
Alan has a valid point. Authorship is a slipper
Stevan:
So the phrase " text authorship" is the solution, is it? And "authorship",
unlike " property" is merely a neutral word with none of its own baggage?
Too bad Michel Foucault is not a member of this list.
Alan Story
Kent Law School
I quite agree with Bernard Lang. There are better ways.
And, as a scholar, you might consider the loss in visibility (and hence
potantial authority) you will suffer for a mere 400 dollars.
Have you looked at the NDLTD site (http://www.ndltd.org)? I assume Stevan
pointed it out in his answer. He
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
>sh> But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my
>sh> intellectual property, even if it is give-away text. All that means is
>sh> that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it.
>
> The usual meaning of the ter
But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my
intellectual property, even if it is give-away text. All that means is
that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it.
The usual meaning of the term "intellectual property" is something
different: it me
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote:
> It has always been quite easy (if you have the money) to get a book printed.
> Publishers are not printers. The business of getting a book printed is only
> one (and not the most important) of a publishing company's functions. Editing
> to improve the
i did not appreciate the forum was only for the research community ;i am an
implementer of research findings eg www.nelh.nhs.uk and benefit from the
detail of scientific monographs. also many people like me who live on the
road and not on a university network need paper copies of books and
publishe
