<<In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gmaxwell@gmail.com writes:
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.>> -----------
WTF? WTF?
Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you. I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no evidence. So piss off with your attitude. And merry christmas ! Now let's see some evidence.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:28 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<<In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gmaxwell@gmail.com writes:
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.>>
WTF? WTF?
Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you. I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no evidence. So piss off with your attitude.
Okay, folks, can we keep this civil please? I'm sure both of you can frame statements like "I believe if you look into JSTOR's pre-1928 documents, you will immediately find that they are assessing dubious copyright" and "Could you elaborate on this and supply a specific example?" could be formed in much nicer words...especially around Christmas.
Cheers, belated merry christmas to everyone and Happy New Year!
Michael
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, folks, can we keep this civil please? I'm sure both of you can frame statements like "I believe if you look into JSTOR's pre-1928 documents, you will immediately find that they are assessing dubious copyright" and "Could you elaborate on this and supply a specific example?" could be formed in much nicer words...especially around Christmas.
And I'm sure I could form coherent sentences if I really wanted to. Anyway, I think my point should be borderline-intelligible :-)
2008/12/26 WJhonson@aol.com:
<<In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gmaxwell@gmail.com writes:
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.>>
WTF? WTF? Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you. I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no evidence. So piss off with your attitude. And merry christmas ! Now let's see some evidence.
Y'know, there's scepticism and then there's just being lazy.
Go to www.jstor.org, click on "Terms and Conditions" and you tell me what 2.2 and 2.3 say.
ps: your civility levels in these two messages are somewhat below suitable levels for the list, and I wouldn't mention it except I've already had complaints this quicly.
- d.
2008/12/26 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/12/26 WJhonson@aol.com:
WTF? WTF? Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you. I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no evidence. So piss off with your attitude. And merry christmas ! Now let's see some evidence.
Y'know, there's scepticism and then there's just being lazy. Go to www.jstor.org, click on "Terms and Conditions" and you tell me what 2.2 and 2.3 say.
And for further enlightenment, why don't you do the obvious non-lazy thing and google "jstor public domain" and read the complaints that JSTOR are doing precisely what people complain they are doing.
- d.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/26 WJhonson@aol.com:
<<In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gmaxwell@gmail.com writes:
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.>>
WTF? WTF? Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you. I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no evidence. So piss off with your attitude. And merry christmas ! Now let's see some evidence.
Y'know, there's scepticism and then there's just being lazy.
Go to www.jstor.org, click on "Terms and Conditions" and you tell me what 2.2 and 2.3 say.
I think 2.2 (i) is particularly relevant:
"download or print, or attempt to download or print, an entire issue or issues of journals or substantial portions of the entire run of a journal" - whether that refers to the images or the contents seems moot really.
I would like to point out here that there are other databases that are generally free to use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysics_Data_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central
Are the two I most often use.
Though others, like the Nature archives, are still difficult to access:
http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html
Nicely laid out, but once you get to the issue you want, you still invariably hit a paywall.
ps: your civility levels in these two messages are somewhat below suitable levels for the list, and I wouldn't mention it except I've already had complaints this quicly.
It's Christmas. Don't do anything based on what was said to me. :-)
Carcharoth