On 28 January 2011 13:56, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 28 January 2011 13:28, SlimVirgin
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think there's a sense of annoyance among
writers whose work is being
copied that the books are so expensive -- sometimes around $50 for a
10,000-word article -- and that the ads for them on Amazon don't make clear
enough that they're on Wikipedia for free.
The ones I'm thinking of, Alphascript Publishing, give the names of three
editors as though they might have written or edited the material, when in
fact it's lifted word for word.
Also, as you said, we've seen editors try to use them as sources, not
realizing they're in a hall of mirrors.
Yeah. The problem is there's no direct action we can really take
without hampering the good reasons for reuse of our material. Or just
scaring people off. I think the best we can do is raise awareness.
This will do that, slightly.
- d.
From March 1st it might be worth contacting the UK
Advertising
Standards Authority, as their remit is being extended then:
http://asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/Online-remit.aspx
Amazon product descriptions almost certainly fall under "non-paid-for
space online under [the marketer's] control". So a misleading
description ought to lead to action. But the issue here is the
misleading *lack* of any description. It could be an interesting
conundrum for the ASA!
Pete / the wub