Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-01 > 1012356583

From: "Paul C. Reed" <>
Subject: Re: U.S. Copyright Law (was: several related threads with diffeent
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:09:43 -0700
References: <>


> The purpose of the journal is not to make a fortune for the publisher, but to
> bring to light new findings and advance knowledge of the subject. These
> complaints from Baldwin and Reed only began in year 2000.

Bull. There were complaints long before that.

> The question for me at this time is simple. Is it even worth continuing such
> a journal, even if the subscribers love it and scholarship is served?

I have no doubt that you will continue it because you love it.

The question for us becomes, is it still worth staying on this list or posting
anything of import because you might decide you like it and take it in spite
of protests? The reason I have stayed on is because people have privately
asked be to bother with this. It would have been much simpler to go my
own way. And indeed, we add much to scholarship by posting on this list
that will still survive (hopefully) in one archive or another, in spite of
what may ever eventually happen to PC.

> Almost every page -- even if copied -- can take an hour to complete and
> formulate. Spell checks, permissions, additional research, proofing, and
> reading through materials for selection take great gobs of time.

You think this is not the case for non-profit journals of high scholarly
reputation such as The Genealogist? The editors earn nothing, yet they
do not take posts against someone's will and publish them. How can
they survive? [You have even taken a private letter from Charles
Hansen, one of the editors of The Genealogist, and published it
without his permission.]

> Can we not have an end to these
> endless accusations that keep us from the chore at hand?

They are not accusations if Stewart, I and others have evidence of
events. It cannot end if you are going to appropriate material and
disrupt this group by the threat of that action. I will not belabor
things, but, Ken, you should know that many people feel quite
strongly about this (though they have not posted publicly). If we
eventually have to have a judge help you understand what 'fair use'
is, so be it. This matter, at some time in the near future, needs to
be decided one way or another, so people can choose their actions
from an informed standpoint.

Somehow, other highly respected journals all survive by abiding
by what you had in the past agreed to do, but now claim is impossible.
How do they do it?

Paul C. Reed

This thread: