On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Anonymous wrote:
> There is a reason why the peer review process and the academic journals
> are still needed. Online preprint archives are useless for the layman.
Laymen don't read online preprint archives. They stick with popular
science stuff (I read Science).
If you're
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Ken Brown wrote:
> PS in English these are "moral" rights - "morale" is borrowed from
> French and means the mental state of an army :-)
Actually it means their willingness to continue to fight. Whether they are
happy about it or not is irrelevant.
--
___
Tom wrote:
[...]
> - publication
> the creator can control if and how his work gets published. only he may
> cite from or describe his work in public as long as neither the work
> nor a description of it are published with his permission.
> (e.g. even the publisher can't leak stuff with
> Ken Brown[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> "Trei, Peter" wrote:
>
> > As an example, consider the Richard Serra's 'Tilted Arc', a 12 foot
> > high, 120 foot long, 70 ton slab of rusty (and usually grafitti covered)
> > steel which blocked the entrance to the main Federal building in
> > lower M
These laws don't really get into cyberpunks territory, because they are
about rights that are reserved to the original artist, and cannot be
transferred to publishers or distributors or record companies, and can
only be possessed by natural persons, not corporations. So (in France,
not the USA) a
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 07:45:18AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote:
> > if used differently, the "morale rights" part could well be used to put
> > a limit on the corporate abuse of copyright. for example, I could
> > envision an argument that an artist sues the RIAA for abusing his
> > copyrighted works
Lucky Green wrote:
>
> Peter wrote:
> > (Hmm, I wonder if it can be argued that making stuff intended
> > for public distribution inaccessible violates the creator's
> > moral rights? I know that doesn't apply in the US, but in
> > other countries it might work. Moral rights can't be
> > ass
> From: Mike Rosing[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
>
> > The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to
> > entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they
> > please is represented by parts of the art cultu
Steve Furlong wrote:
> My experience with scientific journals is more than a few years old. Do
> any of youse have personal experience with publishing both several
> years ago and recently?
In practice these days many scientists put copies of their stuff on
personal or institutional websites,
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Tom wrote:
> actually, as with most laws, the basic idea behind the "moral rights"
> isn't that bad, it just got perverted.
>
> if used differently, the "morale rights" part could well be used to put
> a limit on the corporate abuse of copyright. for example, I could
> envisi
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:27:04AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote:
> > simply dispose of the work, or use it as kindling in his fireplace, once
> > he no longer desires to own it. No, you can't just burn that painting
> > you bought from some street corner painter five years ago. Though you
> > are perm
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
> The other half of the shears cutting away at the public's right to
> entertain themselves with the artwork they purchased in any way they
> please is represented by parts of the art culture of significant
> political clout, in particular in Europe. Bills
Peter wrote:
> (Hmm, I wonder if it can be argued that making stuff intended
> for public distribution inaccessible violates the creator's
> moral rights? I know that doesn't apply in the US, but in
> other countries it might work. Moral rights can't be
> assigned, so no publisher can tak
Greg Newby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Some electronic journals, some conferences and some print journals now let
>authors retain copyright or, if they keep copyright, allow authors to do what
>they please with their work.
Usenix is really good with this. You agree not to re-publish anything f
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 10:04 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> T.C. May writes:
>
>> Anyone here who has not already done so should immediately type
>> "xxx.lanl.gov" into their browser. (No, the "xxx" is not a typo, nor is
>> it a porn site.)
>>
>> This is where physics papers are getting publish
T.C. May writes:
> Anyone here who has not already done so should immediately type
> "xxx.lanl.gov" into their browser. (No, the "xxx" is not a typo, nor is
> it a porn site.)
>
> This is where physics papers are getting published. The print journals
> are surviving, barely, but I think the ha
On Monday, June 10, 2002, at 08:55 PM, Greg Newby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:53:05PM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
>> My experience with scientific journals is more than a few years old. Do
>> any of youse have personal experience with publishing both several
>> years ago and recently?
>
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:53:05PM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
>
> On Monday 10 June 2002 22:20, Jim Choate wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Jason Holt wrote:
> > > copyright issues? Why haven't I seen other papers published on
> > > usenet and such before going to press?
> >
> > This is a j
18 matches
Mail list logo
