On 12/21/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Any File wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
[Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed,
original forwarded to permissions@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.
But these aren't hard and fast "facts" of physical science; they're interpretations. Though I don't think it's right, I can see their point in not wanting their content reproduced freely on Wikipedia; they are in the business of selling definitions, and the DSM-IV online from the APPI costs between $300-400 for individuals. For libraries the price is undoubtedly many, many hundreds of dollars more. If we got after it and posted fair use snippets of the majority of the definitions in the work, the APPI would probably lose money, as well as their editorial control.
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.
I think the idea is probably to make everyone part of their cabal, not to standardize the industry.
-- phoebe / brassratgirl