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].