On 12 August 2011 17:19, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, David Gerard wrote:
>> This is false. Print sources do not require a
legal scan to be available.
> If you try using an illegal scan of a print
source, you'll be told that
> you have no reason to believe the copy accurately represents the source.
I think David meant there's no rule that says
there must be a
scan (legal or illegal) at all.
I think your point is that there's some precedent for rejecting
(or at least complaining about) sources that are only available
off-line.
Rather than your interpretation, I'd like to see examples of what
Ken's complaining about - whether he was told "you can't use that
print reference" or whether he was told "you've linked to a scan
that's a copyright violation". They're rather different things.
-d.