At 11:42 PM 1/8/03 -0500, Danny wrote:
Some of these articles appear to be copyrighted
materials, with certain
phrases changed slightly (and made slightly more inaccurate as a result.
Despite Vera/Lir's protests that there is no other way to write it (which
I don't buy), we are walking a thin line of copyright violation.
Speaking as a writer, editor, and historian, I agree--there's always more than
one way to write things, which is why copyright protects expression but not
facts. At most, she's claiming that *she* isn't a good enough writer to find
another way to express the material. This may be true, but isn't a legal
defense.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org