[Foundation-l] "Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content." um, wtf?

Sat Dec 24 04:49:46 UTC 2005

Phoebe Ayers wrote:

>On 12/21/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Any File wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>David Gerard wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>  [Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed,
>>>>original forwarded to permissions at wikipedia.org):
>>>>
>>>>  We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our
>>>>content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not
>>>>want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have
>>>>complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM
>>>>material or any other APA/APPI content.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>They want to keep for themselves they right of seling the definitions
>>>and the right of chaning them.
>>>
>>>I know that copyright apply only to intellectual right, not to facts.
>>>I can not proibits people to publish that 14-Carbonuim-14 or
>>>230-Thorium are radioactives.
>>>      
>>>
>But these aren't hard and fast "facts" of physical science; they're
>interpretations. 
>
Definitions are neither facts nor interpretations.  They are a priori 
statements intended to insure that we are all talking about the same 
thing.  They can neither be proven, disproven or observed..

>Though I don't think it's right, I can see their point in
>not wanting their content reproduced freely on Wikipedia; they are in the
>business of selling definitions, and the DSM-IV online from the APPI costs
>between $300-400 for individuals. For libraries the price is undoubtedly
>many, many hundreds of dollars more. If we got after it and posted fair use
>snippets of the majority of the definitions in the work, the APPI would
>probably lose money, as well as their editorial control.
>
It would probably be impractical for us to take anything but the 
definitions from thes works, but I do note that the quoted comments say 
"we do not allow anyone to alter our material".  The GFDL does allow 
alterations, but also allows invariable sections.  We allow the 
downstream user to do what he will with the material, with no 
declaration of invariant sections.  Wouldn't it make more sense to have 
all quotations declared invariant.

>>>If they claim that these definitions are covered by copyright rights
>>>they are claming that they are ficticious, just like a text of a novel
>>>is.
>>>      
>>>
>>Copyrighting a definition that has the purpose of standardising a
>>concept across an industry doesn't make sense.  That would force those
>>who are not members of their cabal to define the term differently, and
>>thus effectively defining a different disorder.  The resultant ambiguity
>>would seem contrary to public policy in health care.
>>    
>>
>I think the idea is probably to make everyone part of their cabal, not to
>standardize the industry.
>
Withoiut standardized definitions for psychiatric disorders you end up 
with Scientology.

Ec