On Fri, 24 Mar 1995 Dr. "P. Divirgilio" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: ]I read the comments about redistribution. [...] I do not understand ]the problem as we exchange scientific knowledge and I have never ]seen any particular abuse of information which was posted nor in its ]redistribution. As I see it, Sir (& others interested), there are several "problems" concerning the re-distribution of subscriber's intellectual property: (a) There are many for-profit & "non-profit" e-mail providers who actually would like to offer gatewayed information as "their" product. I believe it would be unacceptable to let flow FISH-ECOLOGY subscriber's works & ideas beyond the limits which are specified on the subscription "contract" (i.e. the conference itself, the specific "site" where the subscribers send the information). Undefined sites/readers & purposes may give an obscure touch to a scientific conference, I would say. I believe there should a right to "e-privacy" within the conferences. (b) There are high and low quality conferences. Many times, the owners from low quality ones (there are several examples within the bio-sciences) seem to feel a kind of horror-vacui and start crossing over systematically (and against Universal copyright, academic conventions and without anyone's consent) posters and information being sent to other sites. This is unacceptable: Behind a successful conference there is a gigantic infrastructure gathered through tax-payers hard-earned money and an endless ammount of man-hours behind "command-and-control" (i.e. never-sleeping-fix-it-right-away SysOps & owner's input) and -most important- the authors who take the time to create/discuss original posters. (c) Access and distribution are two different aspects: I may mention the case of some scientific sites who would not allow their software packages to be put in our Research Software Repository while having the them freely accesible on Internet. That comes up when one *asks* people before taking the item and they have the right to deny rights for re-distribution (they would like people to know their site/institution, they would like to know how many users would like to use their packages, where the package is taken, etc.). ][...] Is there something wrong with the expanded information ]distribution? I believe there is nothing wrong as long as things are done clear & loud, the concerned parties are asked with common universal courtesy and the subscribers are informed on where their works and ideas may come ashore. And I ask: assuming anyone may subscribe to a conference why should there be gateways ?. Cheers, Aldo-Pier [Lstownr. FISH-ECOLOGY, FISH-JUNIOR].