Phoebe Ayers wrote:
On 12/21/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Any File wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>> [Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed,
>>original forwarded to permissions(a)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