On 3/16/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/17/06, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/16/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/16/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>I'd say this one is going to close as no consensus:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...For_Dummies_books
>>
>>So, friends, can you help me to find merit in this article? To be
>>reconciled to the existence of what up to now I am unable to see as
>>anything other than an absurdity? Or is Tony right, and AfD is
>>fatally borken?
>>Guy (JzG)
>
>Non issue. We leave Afd to have their fun that kill it like to copyvio
>it is. Takeing on the inclusionists head on will probably result in a
>dummies watch or something.
It may be utterly useless garbage, but how is it a copyvio? I was
under the impression that non-creative lists of facts (of which I
think this is an example) weren't eligible for copyright.
Kirill Lokshin
It is sorted. For example sorting the books into a "Handheld
computing" section is argubly creative.
Well, it is prefaced with "Note that this list contains some
duplicates; some books are part of multiple ...For Dummies series."
I'm not terribly familiar with these books; do they have something,
like a spine label, giving the series? If that's the case, listing it
by these isn't particularly creative on our part.
Kirill Lokshin