The Issue
Whether or not using the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica to form a list of articles that Britannica has but Wikipedia doesn't constitutes a violation of Britannica's copyright?
The list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics
Background
The WikiProject:Missing encyclopedia articles currently uses four very large lists of topics that appear in other encyclopedias but do not appear in Wikipedia. Of these lists, two are from sources whose copyright has expired, one is a composite of multiple unnamed sources, and the last is based on the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica (hereafter "EB").
On the talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic..., there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a copyright in the list of articles itself. Under US copyright law (e.g. Feist v. Rural), a mere list of facts, topics, names, etc. can be protected by copyright if the selection and/or arrangement of those items is, in and of itself, a creative expression. Since the selection of articles for an encyclopedia is certainly an act of creativity, this may grant EB a copyright over the list of articles in their encyclopedia. If true, then creating derivative works from their list of articles (i.e. by making a list of articles that they have but we don't) is likely to be a copyright violation.
As can be seen from the talk page, not everyone agrees that this applies to the EB list. This includes conflicting opinions from users Jamesday and Postdlf, both of whom I respect for their legal acumen.
Precedent
In March 2004, a very similar situation occurred when someone created a list of missing topics based on the Columbia Encyclopedia. At that time, it was decided by community consensus to delete that list as a likely copyright violation.
Archive of that discussion (look under March 2): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&o...
In my opinion, the only real difference between the two cases is that the EB list has existed for four months without being challenged, whereas the Columbia list was challenged and removed almost immediately after its creation.
So what now?
Either we need to accept that such a list, though potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern to keep around.
OR
We need to come to some agreement that such lists will be maintained despite the potential liability. In which case, Jimbo probably needs sign off since he is ultimately the one who is liable.
Thoughts?
Related links
WikiProject: Missing encyclopedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_arti... Feist v. Rural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service US Copyright Code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/toc.html
-DF User:Dragons flight
No, I don't think a list of alphabetically ordered article names is in any way creative or copyrightable. The other list could - IMO of course - be reinstated, but asking Jimbo is probably a safe thing to do.
-Mgm
On 6/25/05, DF dragons_flight@yahoo.com wrote:
The Issue
Whether or not using the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica to form a list of articles that Britannica has but Wikipedia doesn't constitutes a violation of Britannica's copyright?
The list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics
Background
The WikiProject:Missing encyclopedia articles currently uses four very large lists of topics that appear in other encyclopedias but do not appear in Wikipedia. Of these lists, two are from sources whose copyright has expired, one is a composite of multiple unnamed sources, and the last is based on the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica (hereafter "EB").
On the talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic..., there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a copyright in the list of articles itself. Under US copyright law (e.g. Feist v. Rural), a mere list of facts, topics, names, etc. can be protected by copyright if the selection and/or arrangement of those items is, in and of itself, a creative expression. Since the selection of articles for an encyclopedia is certainly an act of creativity, this may grant EB a copyright over the list of articles in their encyclopedia. If true, then creating derivative works from their list of articles (i.e. by making a list of articles that they have but we don't) is likely to be a copyright violation.
As can be seen from the talk page, not everyone agrees that this applies to the EB list. This includes conflicting opinions from users Jamesday and Postdlf, both of whom I respect for their legal acumen.
Precedent
In March 2004, a very similar situation occurred when someone created a list of missing topics based on the Columbia Encyclopedia. At that time, it was decided by community consensus to delete that list as a likely copyright violation.
Archive of that discussion (look under March 2): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&o...
In my opinion, the only real difference between the two cases is that the EB list has existed for four months without being challenged, whereas the Columbia list was challenged and removed almost immediately after its creation.
So what now?
Either we need to accept that such a list, though potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern to keep around.
OR
We need to come to some agreement that such lists will be maintained despite the potential liability. In which case, Jimbo probably needs sign off since he is ultimately the one who is liable.
Thoughts?
Related links
WikiProject: Missing encyclopedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_arti... Feist v. Rural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service US Copyright Code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/toc.html
-DF User:Dragons flight _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tables of contents are, to my knowledge, generally considered easily and unquestionably covered by fair use clauses -- there is no "creativity" that goes into simply compiling a list of what your encyclopedia has in it, and in the end this is essentially just citation information, which of course is never considered copyrighted (how could you attribute if you could not cite?). If one is to be copyright paranoid (something which I somewhat support in some circumstances), there are plenty of more dodgy uses of fair use in Wikipedia than this.
FF
On 6/25/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
No, I don't think a list of alphabetically ordered article names is in any way creative or copyrightable. The other list could - IMO of course - be reinstated, but asking Jimbo is probably a safe thing to do.
-Mgm
On 6/25/05, DF dragons_flight@yahoo.com wrote:
The Issue
Whether or not using the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica to form a list of articles that Britannica has but Wikipedia doesn't constitutes a violation of Britannica's copyright?
The list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics
Background
The WikiProject:Missing encyclopedia articles currently uses four very large lists of topics that appear in other encyclopedias but do not appear in Wikipedia. Of these lists, two are from sources whose copyright has expired, one is a composite of multiple unnamed sources, and the last is based on the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica (hereafter "EB").
On the talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic..., there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a copyright in the list of articles itself. Under US copyright law (e.g. Feist v. Rural), a mere list of facts, topics, names, etc. can be protected by copyright if the selection and/or arrangement of those items is, in and of itself, a creative expression. Since the selection of articles for an encyclopedia is certainly an act of creativity, this may grant EB a copyright over the list of articles in their encyclopedia. If true, then creating derivative works from their list of articles (i.e. by making a list of articles that they have but we don't) is likely to be a copyright violation.
As can be seen from the talk page, not everyone agrees that this applies to the EB list. This includes conflicting opinions from users Jamesday and Postdlf, both of whom I respect for their legal acumen.
Precedent
In March 2004, a very similar situation occurred when someone created a list of missing topics based on the Columbia Encyclopedia. At that time, it was decided by community consensus to delete that list as a likely copyright violation.
Archive of that discussion (look under March 2): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&o...
In my opinion, the only real difference between the two cases is that the EB list has existed for four months without being challenged, whereas the Columbia list was challenged and removed almost immediately after its creation.
So what now?
Either we need to accept that such a list, though potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern to keep around.
OR
We need to come to some agreement that such lists will be maintained despite the potential liability. In which case, Jimbo probably needs sign off since he is ultimately the one who is liable.
Thoughts?
Related links
WikiProject: Missing encyclopedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_arti... Feist v. Rural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service US Copyright Code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/toc.html
-DF User:Dragons flight _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If Safeway made a list of products offered by WalMart which Safeway did not offer?
Fred
On Jun 24, 2005, at 11:32 PM, DF wrote:
The Issue
Whether or not using the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica to form a list of articles that Britannica has but Wikipedia doesn't constitutes a violation of Britannica's copyright?
The list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2004_Encyclopedia_topics
Background
The WikiProject:Missing encyclopedia articles currently uses four very large lists of topics that appear in other encyclopedias but do not appear in Wikipedia. Of these lists, two are from sources whose copyright has expired, one is a composite of multiple unnamed sources, and the last is based on the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica (hereafter "EB").
On the talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Copyright.3F, there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a copyright in the list of articles itself. Under US copyright law (e.g. Feist v. Rural), a mere list of facts, topics, names, etc. can be protected by copyright if the selection and/or arrangement of those items is, in and of itself, a creative expression. Since the selection of articles for an encyclopedia is certainly an act of creativity, this may grant EB a copyright over the list of articles in their encyclopedia. If true, then creating derivative works from their list of articles (i.e. by making a list of articles that they have but we don't) is likely to be a copyright violation.
As can be seen from the talk page, not everyone agrees that this applies to the EB list. This includes conflicting opinions from users Jamesday and Postdlf, both of whom I respect for their legal acumen.
Precedent
In March 2004, a very similar situation occurred when someone created a list of missing topics based on the Columbia Encyclopedia. At that time, it was decided by community consensus to delete that list as a likely copyright violation.
Archive of that discussion (look under March 2): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=2710783
In my opinion, the only real difference between the two cases is that the EB list has existed for four months without being challenged, whereas the Columbia list was challenged and removed almost immediately after its creation.
So what now?
Either we need to accept that such a list, though potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern to keep around.
OR
We need to come to some agreement that such lists will be maintained despite the potential liability. In which case, Jimbo probably needs sign off since he is ultimately the one who is liable.
Thoughts?
Related links
WikiProject: Missing encyclopedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles Feist v. Rural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service US Copyright Code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/toc.html
-DF User:Dragons flight _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/25/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
DF wrote:
there is an ongoing discussion of whether EB holds a copyright in the list of articles itself.
I've asked this back when I did the Columbia list, and I didn't get a response, but I'll ask the same question again now: Why don't we just ask them if they're okay with it?
I was about to ask the same thing in my post, but I somehow forgot.
On 6/25/05, DF dragons_flight@yahoo.com wrote:
So what now?
Either we need to accept that such a list, though potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern to keep around.
OR
We could just realize that we are removing the list already... A couple of entries at a time. :)
This isn't in the main namespace so it's not directly a part of our encyclopedia and it is not permanent since we are already removing it.
I am in favor of strict copyvio rules on the content in our articles, our work needs to be unquestionably free and it's not acceptable to taint our work with 'maybe' material. I'd always favor removing the questionable since we have the resources to recreate almost anything...
However, I do not believe it is as important to be as aggressive with meta content. A violation outside of the main namespace, in our work groups, and on our talk pages would need to be fixed if we found one, but since the production of that material is not our primary concern we have little to worry about taint from potentially illegally used material. If we discover that something in one of those namespaces is clearly infringing, of course we should remove it but there usually isn't as much need to be aggressive in removing potentially violating material.
So, I think that we can answer this question without a strong determination as to the copyvio status of the page... We should not take action because the problem is solving itself.
DF wrote:
Either we need to accept that such a list, though potentially useful, is too much of a copyright concern to keep around.
OR
We need to come to some agreement that such lists will be maintained despite the potential liability. In which case, Jimbo probably needs sign off since he is ultimately the one who is liable.
It is interesting to follow some of the links in our Feist v. Rural article. I was just reading through the decision in Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata (ooops I almost typed Wikidata. :-) ) http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/JX03YB6O.pdf where it was ruled that the copyright owner could not use copyright law to prevent access to non-copyright information. Cited in that case also was the case of Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1520-28 (9th Cir. 1992). There the court ruled that it was fair use for Accolade to make a copy of and reverse engineer Sega's console software in order to make its own games playable on Sega's system. The court said, "For technical reasons, Accolade had to make a copy of the source code in order to be able to obtain this information. It didn’t want to sell the source code, produce a game-console operating system, or make any other use of the copyrighted code except to be able to sell a noninfringing product, namely a computer game. The court held that this “intermediate copying” of the operating system was a fair use, since the only effect of enjoining it would be to give Sega control over noninfringing products, namely Accolade’s games."
It is also of interest that in a later ruling on costs Wiredata was awarded $91,765.28 in legal fees. To a large extent this was because there was an attempt to extent rights beyond what was avaiable in copyrights, and a recognition that the defendant in such cases is often at a disadvantage. "When the prevailing party is the defendant, who by definition receives not a small award but no award, the presumption in favor of awarding fees is very strong. See Diamond Star Building Corp. v. Freed, 30 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 1994). For without the prospect of such an award, the party might be forced into a nuisance settlement or deterred altogether from enforcing his rights.
AFAIK The discussion so far on this point has been an internal one, with no intervention by anyone representing EB. I don't believe that we are infringing their copyrights, but even if we were there are steps which they must take if they wish to enforce that right. The first such step would be to issue a take-down order. That would give us an opportunity to comply without further problems. In a clear case of copyright violation we would indeed be required to take things down when we become aware of the problem even without such a notice. Where there is serious doubt about the copyrightability of the material we do better by giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt.
Ec
It is also of interest that in a later ruling on costs Wiredata was awarded $91,765.28 in legal fees. To a large extent this was because there was an attempt to extent rights beyond what was avaiable in copyrights, and a recognition that the defendant in such cases is often at a disadvantage. "When the prevailing party is the defendant, who by definition receives not a small award but no award, the presumption in favor of awarding fees is very strong. See Diamond Star Building Corp. v. Freed, 30 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 1994). For without the prospect of such an award, the party might be forced into a nuisance settlement or deterred altogether from enforcing his rights.
I want to just note -- I'm not a lawyer of any kind, but I believe in a number of circumstances there are times in which such sorts of counter-suits, getting legal fees back, etc., are NOT guaranteed, and I'm pretty sure that defenses of "fair use" generally don't get you that ("fair use" is what you use in your defense -- it is not asserted as an offensive "right" you can claim is infringed in current US copyright law). At least, that's what I took away from Lessig's book, _Free Culture_, which makes the argument in part that nuisance settlements are a very common way for unreasonable copyright claims to be threatened and enforced against clear fair use activities (you can read it online if you are interested in what I am talking about -- see the section on the kid who got sued by the RIAA just for writing a better Windows networking client).
Which is just to say -- at the moment, you can't rely on the threat of counter-suit and so forth to necessarily deter lawsuits, as I understand it. (Personally I think this is one of the MAJOR problems with current copyright law -- it makes defending principles punitively expensive, and has gone too far to emphasize the "monopoly" aspect of copyright law without remembering the "limited" part, but I'm hardly the first to make such an observation).
FF
Fastfission wrote:
It is also of interest that in a later ruling on costs Wiredata was awarded $91,765.28 in legal fees. To a large extent this was because there was an attempt to extent rights beyond what was avaiable in copyrights, and a recognition that the defendant in such cases is often at a disadvantage. "When the prevailing party is the defendant, who by definition receives not a small award but no award, the presumption in favor of awarding fees is very strong. See Diamond Star Building Corp. v. Freed, 30 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 1994). For without the prospect of such an award, the party might be forced into a nuisance settlement or deterred altogether from enforcing his rights.
I want to just note -- I'm not a lawyer of any kind, but I believe in a number of circumstances there are times in which such sorts of counter-suits, getting legal fees back, etc., are NOT guaranteed, and I'm pretty sure that defenses of "fair use" generally don't get you that ("fair use" is what you use in your defense -- it is not asserted as an offensive "right" you can claim is infringed in current US copyright law). At least, that's what I took away from Lessig's book, _Free Culture_, which makes the argument in part that nuisance settlements are a very common way for unreasonable copyright claims to be threatened and enforced against clear fair use activities (you can read it online if you are interested in what I am talking about -- see the section on the kid who got sued by the RIAA just for writing a better Windows networking client).
Which is just to say -- at the moment, you can't rely on the threat of counter-suit and so forth to necessarily deter lawsuits, as I understand it. (Personally I think this is one of the MAJOR problems with current copyright law -- it makes defending principles punitively expensive, and has gone too far to emphasize the "monopoly" aspect of copyright law without remembering the "limited" part, but I'm hardly the first to make such an observation).
This was not a matter of a countersuit. The copyright issue was already won by the defendants when they sought to recover costs. In Online Policy Group v. Diebold http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20040930_Diebold_SJ_Ord... Diebold was ordered to pay costs because it had misused copyright.
I don't think that a firm with big bucks at stake is going to be deterred by legal fees, or the threat of being required to pay the opponent's legal fees. Defendants' difficulties are not limited to copyright law. Any defendant faced with a contingency chasing lawyer is going to be at a disadvantage. A plaintiff and his contingency paid lawyer should be held jointly liable for a winning defendant's fees in the same amount as the lawyer would have received if he had won. :-)
Ec
While we should aggressively defend our rights, avoiding litigation is a wise policy. For one thing, particular judges don't necessarily follow the law that you think they will. Additionally although you may eventually get costs, you first must pay costs. I'm still not sure about the list of Britannica articles, but I am sure that our own method of generating endless article titles is probably more comprehensive than any list like that. I know that when I want to start a new article I don't look the topic up in Britannica first. So I think the list is probably worthless for our purposes anyway.
Fred
On Jun 28, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This was not a matter of a countersuit. The copyright issue was already won by the defendants when they sought to recover costs. In Online Policy Group v. Diebold http://www.eff.org/legal/ ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20040930_Diebold_SJ_Order.pdf Diebold was ordered to pay costs because it had misused copyright. I don't think that a firm with big bucks at stake is going to be deterred by legal fees, or the threat of being required to pay the opponent's legal fees. Defendants' difficulties are not limited to copyright law. Any defendant faced with a contingency chasing lawyer is going to be at a disadvantage. A plaintiff and his contingency paid lawyer should be held jointly liable for a winning defendant's fees in the same amount as the lawyer would have received if he had won. :-)
Ec
On 6/28/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I know that when I want to start a new article I don't look the topic up in Britannica first. So I think the list is probably worthless for our purposes anyway.
Fred, you've missed the entire purpose of having the list on Wikipedia. I suggest you go read [[Wikipedia:WikiProject missing encyclopedia articles]], which is well-advertised and clearly sets out the purpose of the list and the project to clear it out.
-- ambi
Judges are indeed unpredictable. Success can often depend on the whims of court scheduling. What I find in the popular view of law is a clear violation and a clear penalty with no intermediate steps or grey areas in between. In reality there are several steps between an allegedly infringing act and an appelate court decision. At each step along the way our position must be reevaluated. I think that the reasonable doubt about the copyrightability of the Britannica list should take us through the first step. If a take down order is issued, that's when we would need to review the matter.
Whether the Britannica list is worthless for our purposes is debatable. When I started I would look at our software generated most wanted list to see if anything there interested me, and I started a number of articles that way. I can see the EB list being used that way, especially by newbies. The list just shows what we don't have; it does not suggest that the potential contributor seek out the Britannica article. If instead it inspires someone to research an otherwise obscure historical personage, then we all benefit.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
While we should aggressively defend our rights, avoiding litigation is a wise policy. For one thing, particular judges don't necessarily follow the law that you think they will. Additionally although you may eventually get costs, you first must pay costs. I'm still not sure about the list of Britannica articles, but I am sure that our own method of generating endless article titles is probably more comprehensive than any list like that. I know that when I want to start a new article I don't look the topic up in Britannica first. So I think the list is probably worthless for our purposes anyway.
Fred
On Jun 28, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
This was not a matter of a countersuit. The copyright issue was already won by the defendants when they sought to recover costs. In Online Policy Group v. Diebold http://www.eff.org/legal/ ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20040930_Diebold_SJ_Order.pdf Diebold was ordered to pay costs because it had misused copyright. I don't think that a firm with big bucks at stake is going to be deterred by legal fees, or the threat of being required to pay the opponent's legal fees. Defendants' difficulties are not limited to copyright law. Any defendant faced with a contingency chasing lawyer is going to be at a disadvantage. A plaintiff and his contingency paid lawyer should be held jointly liable for a winning defendant's fees in the same amount as the lawyer would have received if he had won. :-)
Ec
On 28/06/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Whether the Britannica list is worthless for our purposes is debatable. When I started I would look at our software generated most wanted list to see if anything there interested me, and I started a number of articles that way.
I've done this a couple of times, as well. Or digging up odd lists and filling redlinks; I wrote an article on Lorenzo de Medici Sweat simply becuase he had such a lovely name.
I can see the EB list being used that way, especially by newbies. The list just shows what we don't have; it does not suggest that the potential contributor seek out the Britannica article. If instead it inspires someone to research an otherwise obscure historical personage, then we all benefit.
The "obscure historical personage" is one of the key things for us; I think we're past the stage that we run the risk of failing to include a field of academic interest through not knowing about it (Having a bad article through no expert knowledge is another matter). But a lot of those personages will be in the 1911 Encyclopedia, or the various other old encyclopedias we have lists for - I just went to look at the project page, and was happily surprised to see that Britannica is just one of a set of similar projects being undertaken as comparisons.
Hmm. The original Oxford /Dictionary of National Biography/ was originally printed in 1909. It'd be an excellent source for things like this; I wonder if an index is available? I note that the Australian and Canadian equivalents have had lists set up.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 28/06/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I can see the EB list being used that way, especially by newbies. The list just shows what we don't have; it does not suggest that the potential contributor seek out the Britannica article. If instead it inspires someone to research an otherwise obscure historical personage, then we all benefit.
The "obscure historical personage" is one of the key things for us; I think we're past the stage that we run the risk of failing to include a field of academic interest through not knowing about it (Having a bad article through no expert knowledge is another matter). But a lot of those personages will be in the 1911 Encyclopedia, or the various other old encyclopedias we have lists for - I just went to look at the project page, and was happily surprised to see that Britannica is just one of a set of similar projects being undertaken as comparisons.
Hmm. The original Oxford /Dictionary of National Biography/ was originally printed in 1909. It'd be an excellent source for things like this; I wonder if an index is available? I note that the Australian and Canadian equivalents have had lists set up.
Yes there is, and there is a statistical analysis in reprint volume 22. Each reprint volume (which consolidated 3 original volumes each) has its own index. What's more the original body was in alphabetical order anyway.
Ec