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.
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.
The copyrightability of definitions is a troubling idea in a broader
context. The accuracy of definitions can depend on precise wording.
If, with the intent of circumventing copyright infringement we rewrite a
definition we may no longer be talking about the same thing.
Ec