Re: Where is the Searchable Applescript-users Archive?
Re: Where is the Searchable Applescript-users Archive?
- Subject: Re: Where is the Searchable Applescript-users Archive?
- From: email@hidden (Douglas Wagner)
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:52:15 -0400
Hello List:
(Thank you for your response to my letter Mr von Rospach).
I said:
> 1 What is it, that is not approved? The act of making public
> material available to the public in a conveniently searchable form,
> independent of Apple and so, not controlled by Apple?
And the list mom responded with:
Actually, we can argue whether the material is really public. Every article
is owned by copyright by the original poster, and the collection of those
articles in total have a copyright by Apple. They are NOT public domain, and
putting them all in an archive and re-publishing them without our approval
is a violation of that copyright.
The issue here is whether the material in the archive is public or
private, whether our collected work is in the public domain or owned,
literally, by Apple, and only nominally, whether a private archive
requires Apples' approval.
What strikes me immediately about the above is the mode of argument.
The writer is saying, "We could argue, but we won't, because I need
to tell you the way things are". "We can argue...", is a rhetorical
red herring. Rather than an argument we have an assertion; Apple owns
the copyright to the collected work, and that's that.
I said:
> 3 Apple hosts the list but the members contribute most of the
> material. And as far as I'm aware, there is no law in Canada, where I
> live, that prohibits me from archiving a public list,
And the list mom replied:
Copyright. Canada's a member of the Berne convention on copyright. Putting
up a public archive is not within the rights under fair use.
The first sentence implies there exists a law which prohibits
archiving. However, without a verb, we can't be certain of the
details. The second sentence offers an easily accepted truth. It can
be seen to offered support to the unspoken assertion in the first.
The third could be true if the material in the archive was private.
The question of how Apple has arrived at ownership of the list is
left hanging.
We are informed we have a right to copy the material we contribute.
(When I post, I assume I may be quoted at any time and may quote the
work of others in return. That is how the lists operates. So far,
I've not been asked by anyone to release copyright on anything I've
written. On the contrary, I've been quoted freely and in some cases,
inaccurately). So, based on common practice, the list is, de facto, a
public list. Yet the server password seems to indicate otherwise. But
in what sense can the list be considered private? It's not a private
club or a secret society. We are not required to pass an examination,
or sign a contract or prove our social worthiness. In fact, anyone
can join. As the material is circulated widely, and to anyone who
asks for it, I don't see how one reasonably can say it's private. The
material is, de facto, in the public domain. How then can Apple lay
claim to it? Perhaps, merely because they do.
It is gracious of Apple to acknowledge, we have copyright of our own
work. But, of course, the true value of the material is realized when
the collected wisdom of those who contribute is placed in a
(searchable) archive. I expect part of that wisdom is fair and
reasonable criticism of Apple, its products and its corporate ethics
and tactics. So we should not be surprised that Apple should lay
claim to any archive and guard it jealously. But the list, as I
receive it, contains no copyright mark. So even for Apple, the issue
of copyright is best avoided. Perhaps, this is one reason why, in a
recent letter to the list, the list mom asked that we refrain from
discussion of these "meta" matters.
Apple's position on who owns the material in the archive reminds me
of those corporations which invite young architects to contribute
their best ideas in a design competition, and then claim ownership of
the submitted work. Although in that case naked corporate greed is
more difficult to disguise as altruism. (We do this, for your own
good, to protect you from those despicable spammers).
Best Wishes: Douglas Wagner